Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Moray Health Trust

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I present a petition that has been signed by more than 16,000 of my constituents. It relates to the reconfiguration of health trusts in the Grampian area and the desire to retain a unitary trust in the Moray area. It reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the honourable House will take notice of the wish of those served by the Moray Health Services Trust that the Trust be regarded as a special case, enabling the continuation of an integrated, locally-managed health service.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Genetically Modified Organisms

Mr. John Austin: I have a petition that has been signed by several of my constituents from Erith and Thamesmead, from Greenwich and Woolwich, from Eltham and elsewhere. It expresses mounting concern at the impact of genetically modified organisms on the environment and at the fact that the risks to public health from those organisms have not been clearly established, and expresses the belief that it is crucial to safeguard the British landscape and its diverse flora and fauna. The petition states:
The humble petition of the Members of The Charlton and Blackheath Amateur Horticultural Society,
pray that your honourable House determines that no further consents should be granted to grow genetically modified crops until a full public inquiry has been carried out.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Hunting (Wild Mammals)

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: It is perhaps an opportune moment, on the last day before the summer recess, to present this petition, which calls for the abolition of hunting with dogs, an issue which will not go away simply because the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), my namesake, has not been successful this Session. The petition states:
The Petition of the Residents of Hastings and District
Declares That the hunting of wild mammals with dogs is a cruel and unnecessary activity which has no place in modem Britain And having supported the Wild Mammals (Hunting With Dogs) Bill

which sought to outlaw the practice but which Bill had insufficient time to pass through Parliament albeit attracting the free support of the overwhelming majority of Members in the House.
The Petitioners hereby request that the House of Commons in recognising the widespread public support for the measure shall call upon the Government to allocate sufficient time in the next session of Parliament for such measures to pass through the House.
Nearly 10,000 residents in or around my constituency have signed the petition, and it has my full support.
To lie upon the Table.

Xenotransplantation

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is obviously a week for petitions on matters ethical and related. In that context, I present a petition of 26,000-plus people—members and supporters of the Society of Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine—on the subject of transgenic transplant experiments. The petition
Declares that we are gravely concerned at the very real risk of creating new and catastrophic human epidemics through the proposed transplanting of animal organs (genetically engineered or otherwise) into humans, thereby giving rise to the possibility of inevitably unknown viruses crossing the species barrier, a single instance of which could unleash an irreversible chain reaction of unimaginable proportions, and we are particularly concerned that action is urgently needed since transplants are planned to commence by the autumn of this year.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons request the Secretary of State for Health to take action to bring to an end these health and life threatening experiments.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Concessionary Travel

Mr. Patrick Hall: I am pleased to present this petition of more than 600 signatures from residents of Bedfordshire, in particular Bedford and Kempston, who declare
that access to concessionary travel in Britain is unequal and varies widely.
The Petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House of Commons calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to bring in the necessary measures to create a nationwide travel pass available free of charge to all pensioners and people with a registered disability.
May I quickly add that I recognise and welcome the significant measures that were announced in the recent transport White Paper to establish a national minimum standard for concessionary travel? This petition can be seen as a contribution to that debate. The White Paper is an important first step towards the free travel that is sought by the petitioners.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are grateful for the overwhelming support that the House has shown for the Bill, following the substantial backing for the agreement in Northern Ireland itself. Once the Bill is finally approved, the requirement of the triple lock, which successive Governments have agreed should apply to any settlement, will be satisfied.
The Bill is the culmination of a great deal of work in Northern Ireland. We have put a number of Bills before the House this year. The key developments show how much the Northern Ireland political landscape, which is the context in which this Bill will operate, if passed, has changed in the past 12 months.
It is instructive to remember that this time last year the talks participants were still deadlocked on the decommissioning question. They had not addressed their substantive agenda; they began that only in October. Once they did begin, the pace accelerated, culminating in the Good Friday agreement on 10 April. Since then, we have had a referendum, an election, an Assembly, a policing commission, a criminal justice review and a decommissioning body, as well as passing the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. We have also acted on our commitments on the Irish language.
Now the House is considering and, I hope, will shortly pass this Bill. It is major piece of constitutional legislation, which has been prepared in record time. We have been happy to acknowledge that further changes may be necessary, while still taking some pride in the Bill as it stands. It is, we believe, an essentially sound framework for the agreement institutions to operate within.
I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment as I want to thank the civil servants. The list that I have just given shows how much work has been done by Northern Ireland civil servants over past months. I also pay tribute to the many political party leaders, to the Prime Minister, to the Taoiseach and, above all, to the people of Northern Ireland who have given their support and encouragement to making progress with the Bill.
Of course, we respect the doubts that have been expressed about the agreement within the House and outside it. Those who doubt have often shown courage, too. However, I believe that people are ever more widely coming to the view, whatever their original reservations, that the agreement must be made to work. The Government will continue to do all that they can to ensure that the agreement comes fully into operation, in all its aspects. In doing that, we will listen to all shades of opinion, for the agreement or against it. We will work closely with the new authorities established in Northern Ireland. Those comments apply especially to the Bill, just as they do to other aspects of the agreement. We are anxious that the Bill should reflect the agreement as faithfully as possible and, within its terms, provide the most effective and flexible machinery possible.
We have always declared our willingness to look again at the provisions of the Bill to achieve those objectives. As a result, we made changes before its introduction on the basis of consultation, and we have made further substantial changes in Committee and on Report. For example, we have omitted a number of sections in the consultation draft that were questioned, such as the default powers of the Secretary of State; we have made the criteria for exclusion of Ministers and parties tighter, consistent with the agreement; we have sharpened many of the human rights provisions, so that, for example, all Assembly Bills will now go to the Human Rights Commission; the commission will advise the Assembly as well as the Secretary of State; the appointment criteria for commissioners better reflect the agreement text; and we have made clearer the scrutiny role of Assembly Committees, in line with the agreement.
While the debate has continued in the House, we have continued to listen. We shall reflect over the summer on a number of the points made in the House. In particular, we will look at the human rights provisions to see whether there are further ways in which the Bill can be strengthened, consistent with the agreement; we will look again at the criteria for early dissolution and for prorogation of the Assembly; and we will look again at some of the Order in Council-making powers. We will also consider audit arrangements. We cannot promise anything, but we will look at those and other areas carefully and with an open mind. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is already arranging further meetings in September with the parties to discuss their views. We shall then introduce any necessary amendments in another place.
I thank colleagues for their forbearance in accommodating the lengthy discussion of the Bill at such a late stage, and for the hard work they have put into it. It has been a civilised debate, for which I thank hon. Members—I know how strongly some of them feel. I hope that that bodes well for the future. On this last day of the Session, and after the intensive work of recent months, we all feel the need for a period of rest. I hope that hon. Members get a couple of weeks—but after that there is a great deal of work ahead both for the parties in the Assembly and for their lordships, who are to consider the Bill further.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, want to contribute to the civilised nature of the debate. If the Secretary of State wants to find me in a couple of weeks, I shall be long gone—

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): But not forgotten.

Mr. Moss: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to say so.
As the Secretary of State said, this is a major piece of constitutional legislation. It fits in with the rapid pace of change in Northern Ireland during her tenure of office. The Bill has gone through the House in record time. We know the reasons for that—commitments were given, and it has been part of a fluid and continuing process.
The Opposition have taken a bipartisan approach, while giving the Bill full scrutiny. We recognise the need to get the Bill on the statute book, because at the heart of the process is the agreement. Whether or not we like the agreement, or think it will work to fulfil expectations, is irrelevant at this particular time. The agreement was arrived at by the various parties in the talks in Northern Ireland, and in that sense it is a local agreement. We are simply giving a statutory framework to what was agreed on Good Friday. It therefore ill behoves us to try to rewrite the agreement, and that has been the theme throughout our discussions over the past week or two.
I, too, want to give some praise to the civil servants in Northern Ireland, who have pulled out all the stops to get the Bill to this particular juncture in record time. It builds on the framework of existing Northern Ireland legislation, even though that legislation may now be on the shelf for some considerable time. The Bill introduces considerable new powers that reflect the agreement.
The Secretary of State said that the Government still recognise that a considerable amount of tidying up remains to be done, and discussions need to continue over the summer months. The Bill has yet to progress through the other place. The Opposition certainly intend to table amendments then to try to improve the Bill.
There have been few areas of disagreement, for the reasons that I have already outlined. The two areas of disagreement that remain concern clause 23, relating to the exclusion of Ministers from office, and clause 60 and related clauses on the Equality Commission. As we said during our debate the other evening, clause 23 is closely related to the release of prisoners and proscribing—or specifying, as the Bill puts it—certain terrorist organisations.
We recognise that the legislation is a matter of interpretation for the Secretary of State, and that it is her right to interpret it as she will, based on the information she possesses and her overall knowledge and perception of events in Northern Ireland. Occasionally, we will beg to differ on that interpretation. That principle has been the basis for the limited opposition that we have brought to bear.
I realise that clause 60 deals with a matter that is very dear to the Secretary of State's heart and that she would like, if at all possible, to proceed on it as stated in the Bill. However, she is aware, as are we all, of the disquiet that is still being expressed by some of the bodies that will be influenced by, and be party to, the change—particularly the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Northern Ireland Disability Council. Those three bodies are still very concerned at the implications of clause 60 and of the Bill generally.
We are pleased in some ways that the Minister, in his reply to the debate on those clauses, said that consultation and discussions will be continuing over the summer. We welcome that. It is important to try to arrive at a sensible compromise on which all parties can agree, rather than simply to push through provisions that currently seem not to have been subjected to the full range of consultation that was promised, or even expected.
The Opposition put down the marker that further amendments will be tabled in the other place, particularly amendments dealing with the matters that I

have just adumbrated. On balance, we realise that the legislation gives statutory powers as agreed in the Good Friday agreement, and we shall be voting for it on Third Reading.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The House will be well aware that the great desire of the people of Northern Ireland is, first, to have a cessation of violence and to create the circumstances in which violence will not recur; and secondly, to provide a framework whereby economic and social development can occur. Northern Ireland Members will recall the euphoria that swept Northern Ireland on the morning of 10 April when the agreement was reached, and also when the referendum received the support of more than 70 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. That support is the reason why all Northern Ireland Members should be supporting the Bill. The Bill contains the agreement that was reached by the vast majority of parties and peoples and endorsed by those peoples.
I recall also the ceasefire of 1994—the great burden that was lifted off the shoulders of Northern Ireland, and the physical feeling of relief, which was to be dashed by a subsequent reversal—and then the renewal, in 1997. Surely the Bill, which embodies the agreement in its entirety, will give us an opportunity to develop constitutional political stability, economic development, new investment, confidence and social development. At long last, all those matters can now be administered locally and tailored to meet the needs of the people.
As I said in previous debates, after 30 years of violence it cannot be switched off overnight. Many people in our community have used violence—executed people in the most horrible way, maimed and killed people, and destroyed property—and they have been desensitised to normal modes of behaviour and acceptance of the rule of law. It is highly probable, however unpalatable it might be, that those people—if they are in some way thwarted, either personally or by events—will express their opposition in violence.
I make a plea, particularly to the family of Unionist parties, not to use those singular acts of violence as a reason to bring down the whole delicate edifice of constitutional and democratic institutions that we have so painfully built up over the past two years. It is a very difficult and sensitive matter. It is a matter of grave judgment, one way or the other, whether a person or party is involved in violence for the purpose of pursuing political objectives. We must not confuse that violence with personal violence, with implementation of personal vendettas, or even with group vendettas.
In an earlier debate, the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—I do not want to take his name in vain again—cited 58 incidents of republican violence and 53 or 54 incidents of loyalist violence. Such events will happen. I hope that, by working and growing together, our communities will be able to eschew such behaviour and develop an ethos of peace and co-operation. We can do that only by working together.
I know that some representatives of parts of the Unionist community have a fear of the agreement—that in some way it will overtake them and their aspirations and traditions. Nothing could be further from my mind. The agreement is, first, a matter of co-operation.
Unless there is co-operation—not only in the agreement itself and in the legislation, but in their implementation—the agreement will fall apart and nothing will happen.
The greatest strength that any Northern Ireland party has is the ability to say no—which I know is a rather dangerous thing to say in Northern Ireland politics. However, in the context of participating, there is always a veto for those parties. The Bill contains so much protection in ensuring that one will is not imposed on another, or that one group, community or tradition does not win a victory over another. That was the spirit driving the negotiations and the mechanisms embodied in the Bill, giving everyone enough confidence to participate.
This morning, even at this late stage, if there is a Division on Third Reading, I urge those persons and representatives who are opposed to the agreement—which has been endorsed by the people—to say, "Yes, we have reservations about this. We will continue to fight our corner and, from our viewpoint, to safeguard the views of the people we represent. But we will give it a chance." The Bill is one chance, in the centuries and decades of violence, to make progress, and it affords the confidence of knowing that protections are fully built into it. Furthermore, the people have clearly and unambiguously said, "Please do this for us."
I welcome the Secretary of State's mention for human rights, language and culture. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their own openness in consultation and readiness to listen to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House; and for their promises and undertakings to pursue further dialogue during the five short weeks until 14 September, when the Assembly will reconvene for very formal and important decisions. I thank also "the back office" people who constructed the Bill. Although it is very difficult to translate political terminology into statutory terminology, it was done reasonably well in the Bill, which can be amended later in greater detail.
Much has been said about the Bill. My main concern is that the people's will should be endorsed, and that—because of that will—an ethos of peace should be created. The violence that we have had must never recur, and at long last we will have an opportunity to strengthen economic development, inward investment, social advancement and a better standard of living. I sincerely believe that the Bill is a vehicle by which those goals can be achieved.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: What a marathon this has been. I congratulate Ministers on the pace at which they have moved the Bill forward. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill whole-heartedly and believe that it is the vital ingredient which will turn the agreement into reality.
During the past two weeks, the House has witnessed the transformation of the Belfast agreement into tangible legislation that will guide the new Northern Ireland Assembly, which is a good thing. It is also great to see some true innovations: Northern Ireland stands to lead Europe on a number of human rights issues, especially those challenging prejudice.
However, the Government have not accepted amendments that we would have liked. I know that there is strong concern on the Ulster Unionist Benches about

the Assembly's ability to ratify important decisions made by the North-South Ministerial Council. The Belfast agreement clearly states that the council remains accountable to the Assembly. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), gave a serious commitment in yesterday's debate to revisit that matter in another place.
I have also been concerned about the allocation of chairmanships. It is a drum that I have been banging during the Bill's long parade through the Chamber, and I hope that the Government will honour their commitment to examine that, too.
The summer provides an opportunity to fine-tune what is basically a very good Bill. The Northern Ireland parties know better than any others the aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland to make the Assembly work. It is important that the Northern Irish public are able to consult, through their parliamentary representatives, during the informal period of summer.
We need to remember what we are doing all this for. It is to normalise Northern Ireland and make it an even better place in which to live than it is already. From the point of view of tourism, Northern Ireland is probably Britain's best-kept secret, from the beautiful glens of Antrim to the mystery of Giant's causeway, from Strangford's character and its ferry—or is it a barge?—to the mountains of Mourne—

Mr. McGrady: What about South Down?

Mr. Öpik: There are many other areas that I shall not mention in order to prevent another lengthy debate. If one were to design a country for tourism, one would come up with Northern Ireland.
The point is that we have to turn the opportunity of Northern Ireland into a reality, for the people who live there and for those who visit. Many people who visit the Province return to it. Those who have not visited it do not know what they are missing.
Personally, I have learnt a few things during the passage of the Bill—something about our procedures, a bit about the problems faced by Northern Ireland representatives here, and a great deal about attitudes.
There is an old saying that you cannot talk yourself out of a problem that you have behaved yourself into. To some extent, Northern Ireland had behaved itself into a problem. The biggest problem is that people stop listening. I have to admit that I am thinking of myself the other night when I was a bit of a grumpy old hon. Member. I have learnt that people listen least when they are the least confident about their position or that of others, and when they feel threatened. Perhaps that is something to which we should be sensitive.
We have to recognise the enormous stress placed on Unionist and nationalist representatives here. They are the ones who have to make the process work. They are on the front line and have to face the individuals who are most affected by what we have decided.
I look forward to the Assembly meeting in September. I hope that it will be able to work with the Bill and that the review which has been promised will iron out any teething problems that we come across as the Assembly implements the procedures.
Scars run deep, and there is much bitterness and many tragic memories in Northern Ireland, but I hope that all the parties that have been so constructive in our debates will recognise that it is up to all of us to make this work. Let us not think of the future in terms of failure, but plan for success. By doing so, we shall make it much more likely that that success occurs.

Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the House had been very busy making sure that the Bill is passed. We may have been busy in the past 10 days, but we have been nowhere near as busy as she and her able team of Ministers, who, with single-minded determination, have made sure that an agreement was reached.
I shall make three brief points. First, since Northern Ireland came into existence, there has never been a satisfactory way of governing that part of the United Kingdom. Stormont was wrong, and I doubt whether any Unionist politician would now stand up and say that what occurred at that time could possibly be defended or justified in any way. Direct rule was necessary, but there was a tremendous democratic deficit. The agreement is the fairest possible way in which Northern Ireland can be governed.
Secondly, the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom has been reinforced. The idea that the agreement somehow paves the way for a united Ireland without the consent of the people who live there is simply paranoia. The notion that the North-South Ministerial Council is a halfway measure to a united Ireland without the agreement of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland is absolutely without foundation. Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution have been removed. On virtually every occasion, Unionist politicians have said that they should be removed, for reasons that we understand. There is no question of the agreement bringing about a unitary state in Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people. That fact is reinforced in the Bill.
Thirdly—I choose my words with care and speak simply as a Back Bencher—for more than a quarter of a century, the British people, like the House, refused to give way to terror or to accept terrorist aims and activities on the ground, either in Northern Ireland or on the mainland. We never accepted that we should surrender or say in effect that the IRA would triumph and that a united Ireland would be brought about without the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. We have held that position for a quarter of a century, regardless of what happened in Northern Ireland—for example, at Enniskillen and many other places—or on the mainland in Warrington and in Birmingham, where so many people were butchered in November 1974. The British people refused to give in to terror. As far as I know, none of us—certainly not me—received any—

Mr. William Thompson: rose—

Mr. Winnick: No, I shall not give way. I said that I would be brief.
None of us received letters from constituents suggesting any course other than fighting terrorism.
However—I choose my words with care—one should not take the consent and tolerance of the people of Britain for granted. Had there been a referendum on the mainland about the agreement, there would have been an even larger majority in favour than there was in Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If the agreement were destroyed, or if there were attempts to destroy it by influential sections of the Unionist community, I believe that the British people would take a rather different attitude to Northern Ireland.
As I said, the British people have stood up to terror. They have refused to give way under any circumstances for more than a quarter of a century. The agreement is the fairest possible way for representatives of the two communities to govern the people of Northern Ireland, and it has been endorsed by an overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland. Understandably, the British people would find it difficult to understand the agreement being destroyed by the very people who constantly say that they are part of the United Kingdom and that they accept the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. If those people are arguing as politicians who do not like the agreement, so be it. Many things happened in the past 18 years which we, in opposition, did not like, but the democratic process must always be observed. I hope that that point will be taken on board by all hon. Members, whether they are for or against the agreement.
This is an excellent measure. I hope that it will succeed and that the people of Northern Ireland can live in peace.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: It has long been the desire of the Ulster Unionist party to have proper democratic and accountable government restored to Northern Ireland, and we have worked hard over many years for a Northern Ireland Assembly that will give elected representatives a real say over local affairs.
We welcome the opportunity to have a form of accountable government restored to Northern Ireland, but we have concerns which we have expressed. We make use of the democratic process, which is our right, and we are committed to exclusively peaceful means of pursuing our concerns. Let no one be in any doubt about that. However, it is legitimate and right in a democratic society that elected representatives of the people should voice concerns. It is true that the agreement was endorsed by a majority of the people voting in the referendum in Northern Ireland, but that does not mean that the almost 30 per cent. of people who voted against have no say in the future of Northern Ireland and how the institutions develop. It is significant that not one right hon. or hon. Member on these Benches who voted for the agreement is here today to defend it and to advocate support for the Bill. Where are they?
We are here representing the people who elected us, and we will continue to do that, but we will do it in a democratic fashion because, for 30 years, we have watched as terrorists have tried and failed to undermine democracy in Northern Ireland. We have watched as they have carried out their terrorist acts here in Great Britain, and our condemnation of those acts is equal to our condemnation of the actions of terrorists in Northern Ireland.
My party stands against terrorism and against those who would use violence for supposedly political objectives. The question is: can we fudge the lines


between democracy and terrorism. Can we blur those lines in a democratic society? The chief reason why I personally voted against the agreement was that I believe that aspects of it blur the lines between terrorism and democracy. I reiterate that today. There are also aspects of the Bill that blur those lines. We have sought to clarify the lines—not to wreck the agreement and the institutions, as some hon. Members have suggested, but to ensure that adequate safeguards are built into the legislation to protect those institutions from people who have used violence in the past and who continue to use violence to further their political objectives.
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said. He argues that one cannot condemn an organisation simply because the actions of certain individuals, but he will know, as I do, that those individuals do not act in isolation. He will know that the Provisional IRA is the most disciplined terrorist organisation in these islands and to suggest that murders are carried out without some sanction from the leadership of such organisations is wrong and naive. Our responsibility is to ensure that the institutions that have been created are protected from those who have used violence and continue to use violence for political objectives.
When the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland during the referendum, he promised the people of Northern Ireland that those who have used violence would not be allowed to hold ministerial office if they had not given up violence for good. He also promised that the prisoners would stay in gaol unless violence had been given up for good. In light of the decision taken by the Government in respect of the release of terrorist prisoners, it is highly legitimate to argue that the release of IRA prisoners, UVF prisoners and UDA prisoners in the wake of on-going violence by all those organisations demonstrates the point that we have made—that the provisions are inadequate and need to be strengthened.
If there is not to be a fudge between terrorism and democracy, we cannot have elected representatives holding ministerial office who are connected to, or are members of, a terrorist organisation that is continuing violence in the pursuit of its political objectives. That may well become a reality in the weeks ahead. It will not have my support. I will not support a system that places in government over me and my family those who continue to support or engage in terrorist violence. That is why we believe that the mechanisms in the legislation need to be strengthened to ensure that that cannot come about. I urge the Government to look again at that.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the Bill represents an opportunity for Northern Ireland to have a Government who have the support of the majority of the people. As he said, Stormont failed because it did not win the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population. I make the argument back to him that the agreement and the institutions created under it must command even wider support than they have to date. Up to 30 per cent. of the people have not so far given their allegiance. The same number withheld their allegiance to the Stormont Parliament for 50 years. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think about that and not to dismiss the legitimate concerns of people such as myself and simply say that because 70 per cent. gave their allegiance,

the other 30 per cent. should do the same. Our allegiance also has to be won. Our trust and our confidence have to be created and it is the responsibility of those who engage in violence and terrorism to persuade us that they have given up violence for good and to do so in a tangible manner.
Violence must be given up for good. That includes the decommissioning of terrorist weapons, as provided for in the agreement. It also includes the dismantling of terrorist organisations and an end to the punishment beatings, as the Prime Minister said at Balmoral. None of that is happening in Northern Ireland. It must happen if we are to have any confidence that those engaged in violence have ended their violence for good.
In respect of north-south co-operation, we have asked for proper accountability and that the Assembly exercises its authority to ensure that those elected by the people of Northern Ireland control the rate and extent of co-operation. That is important because there is a view that Irish nationalists, in pursuit of their objective of a united Ireland, will cease to use the North-South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies to create an all-Ireland framework that will be the basis on which the political unification of the island of Ireland will be built. That is not paranoia. It is simply a statement of concern by many Unionists. If co-operation is to take place, it must be on the basis of mutual respect and understanding, and not in pursuit of a political agenda that is about usurping the wishes of the majority. The only provision for real consent in the Bill is on the final question of Northern Ireland's constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom. Consent on the development of north-south co-operation can be exercised only through the Assembly and the elected representatives. That is why accountability is crucial. I welcomed the Minister's commitment last night to look again at the issue. I hope that he will strengthen the lines of accountability for the Assembly.
As a Unionist, I believe that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom because that is the wish of the greater number of people who live in Northern Ireland. I hear what the hon. Member for Walsall, North says about the impatience of those who live in Great Britain. Perhaps one can begin to understand that, given the difficulties that we have had in Northern Ireland, but I hope that he accepts that although the people of Northern Ireland, who have endured 30 years of terrorist violence, long for peace, they want to ensure that democracy and the rights of all are upheld.
Constitutionally, only the people of Northern Ireland can determine whether they remain within the United Kingdom. It is unhelpful to imply that impatience could lead to a different outcome. It would not be right for the people of Great Britain to eject the people of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. It would certainly not be right under the Bill. My understanding—perhaps I am wrong—is that it is for the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine whether they remain part of the United Kingdom. I hope and pray that they will long continue to take that positive decision to remain within the United Kingdom, because that provides the best future for them.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I understand and appreciate the pain and concerns that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) feels as a member of


a minority. I hope that he and the people whom he represents never have to go through the same abuse and fear that members of the other minority went through during the period up to the granting of civil rights and beyond. I do not wish that on anyone and I want to respect his position, his attitudes, his tradition and his ideas in a way that was not granted to other people in the past.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Ministers have successfully piloted through the House represents a moment of history. Like most moments of history in this place, it goes through in exactly the same way as if we were legislating for the width of a drainpipe. The aim of the Bill is to bring together two different traditions and to bring about understanding and compassion between them, overcoming past prejudices and promoting respect for different loyalties. Those who have been involved in seeking to achieve that deserve the support of the whole House.
I welcome the undertaking that the Government gave in Committee to look again at strengthening the provisions for the Human Rights Commission. I also welcome the undertaking to consider putting into the Bill the provisions in the agreement for statutory impact assessments by public authorities.
We were all moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I should like to pay tribute to the leader of his party, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who, for 30 years, has argued for peace, respect for traditions, the constitutional way forward and the acknowledgement and welcoming of diversity. At times, he has been pilloried, even in this House, when he sought to bring the men of violence away from the path that they were pursuing and into the constitutional system. We should note and honour his role in seeking to bring people together. The House should regard with shame the treatment that he was given in this place when he was working on the momentous task of bringing Sinn Fein away from the path of violence and into democratic dialogue.
The Bill is only the start and we must not be too euphoric. A lot will have to happen in Northern Ireland. Drawing up the procedures of the Assembly, and agreements on cross-border institutions will take a lot of hard negotiation, compromise and skill. Having seen the work done by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I have confidence that, given the good will of the Assembly, they will be able to achieve that aim.
The position of the Unionists is guaranteed not by the Act of Union, which has now gone, but by the people of Ireland. It is guaranteed by all the people of Ireland under the agreement. I should like to read out the proposed changes to the Irish constitution. The new articles 2 and 3 are a fundamental change from the old attitude that nationality was based on the ownership of territory, not on a union of peoples. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has continually pointed out that a bit of land is not worth fighting about, but unity in diversity of peoples is worth seeking.
Article 2 says:
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise

qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
That is a fine statement and a great banner for the people of the Irish diaspora. Article 3 is a powerful statement of the attitude of the people of the Irish republic. It says:
It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.
That could not be clearer. The threat of the old articles of the Irish constitution—which I always thought was an imagined threat—will be gone. The new articles give a ringing declaration of the nature of the Irish nation and the wish of the Irish people to achieve their aims by peaceful means only. We should all welcome that.

Mr. Peter Robinson: This is a sad day not just for Northern Ireland and the Union but for the House. Instead of crowing at the Despatch Box, the Secretary of State and her Ministers should hang their heads in shame.
This Bill is a victory for the men of violence. No matter what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says, terrorism caused the Government to bring forward the legislation. Some standing up to terrorism to give terrorists places in government; some standing up to terrorists to let them all out of gaol while they continue their violence! Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the House did not stand up to IRA terrorism; it caved in to it and is bringing forward the Bill as a result of it in an attempt to buy off the terrorists.
I well understand how the conscience of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who does not like the words that I am uttering, may twinge. Everybody in Northern Ireland from the Unionist community will know that the Bill will become a broken pledges Act. It is not a settlement Bill; it is a recognition of and a monument to the Government's political immorality and deception.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that the Bill is the enactment of the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is far from it. The people of Northern Ireland voted on the basis of clear promises made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. Those pledges indicated that there would be substantial decommissioning before any prisoners were released or any Sinn Fein-IRA terrorist representatives were allowed to participate in the government of Northern Ireland. The Bill breaks those pledges.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party indicated that violence would have to be given up for good before terrorist representatives could benefit from the agreement. The Bill shows very clearly that terrorists can continue with their violence—continue killing and continue the so-called punishment beatings—and still benefit from the agreement both through the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill and this so-called settlement Bill.
The Prime Minister and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party told the people of Northern Ireland that north-south bodies would be wholly accountable to the


Northern Ireland Assembly, yet that is not stated in the Bill. The commitments given by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party have clearly been broken; they are not honoured in the legislation. The people of Northern Ireland were conned, and I am glad that the majority of the Unionist community now realise that and are moving away from supporting the agreement.
Of course there were those in Northern Ireland who told us that the Union would be more secure as a result of the agreement. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that not only had the Government of Ireland Act 1920 gone, so had the Act of Union 1800. How can there be a more secure Union if the Act of Union is gone? The Bill states:
The Government of Ireland Act 1920 is repealed",
yet the Union is supposed to be stronger. The Bill fundamentally weakens the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Anybody with a modicum of sense will recognise that.
There are those in the House who, although they supported the agreement and retailed it to the community in Northern Ireland, seek to distance themselves from its implementation. At one stage, they told us that they had a 40 ft barge pole with which they would not touch the agreement. But, within a few days, they signed up to that agreement. They went around the country advocating that people should vote yes in the referendum on the agreement, but now they are saying that they have misgivings, and are attacking the Government for implementing the agreement, the successful implementation of which they pledged to work for. No matter how much they wring their hands, the finger of accusation points at them. They are the guilty men, they are the ones who advocated support of the agreement when their colleagues and others in the Unionist community made abundantly clear that the agreement meant exactly what the Bill says that it means.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said in the House many days ago that the legislation was something of a mess. He pointed his finger at the draftsmen, but said, "You should have seen the earlier draft; it was a greater mess." The draftsmen are not to be blamed because the greatest mess of all is the agreement of which he was one of the architects. I do not in the least blame the draftsmen for the difficulty that they have had in interpreting the agreement.
I say again in the House that the Bill faithfully represents what the agreement says and others have interpreted, but does not faithfully represent the pledges given by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Minister designate of Northern Ireland. The Bill is not what the people of Northern Ireland voted for. In such a form, it will not work.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: We have just listened to a characteristically bleak and dismal speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). It was a speech of a politician whose world is changing radically. We share his detestation of terrorists—I have said that often enough in the House—but we part company dramatically and radically on our reaction to the Bill. I welcome the Bill. Over the past

15 months, we have seen the beginnings of a radical transformation of the United Kingdom. If one links the Bill with the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, it is fair to say—on this I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that the United Kingdom will never be the same again; nor will these islands in which we live.
The three Bills have profound implications—both intended and unintended—for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole, as well as for the House. Of the three Bills, the Northern Ireland Bill is the most remarkable, thanks to the people of Northern Ireland, their political representatives and our Ministers. I never thought that we would come this far in so short a time. For me, the statement on the Bloody Sunday tribunal was a defining moment. The legislation has gathered pace.
We understand some of the concerns of Opposition Members although to us the principle of consent holds in this context just as it does in Scotland. We have said to the people of Scotland in the context of the Scotland Bill that if a majority chooses to separate from the rest of the UK, we would not thwart that desire. Similarly, that holds in Northern Ireland. A majority of the people will determine the future of the nations that make up the multinational state that we call the United Kingdom.
I should like to make three brief points. First, every effort must be made by those elected to the Assembly to avoid the institutionalisation of sectarianism in that body and associated organisations. Secondly, the Government must examine clause 81 of the Scotland Bill, which removes in an honest and fair-minded way the flaw of future Scottish representation in this House. That is a very thorny question, but it must be understood, not only in Scotland but in Northern Ireland and Wales. There ought to be at least a discussion of that question in the other place.
Thirdly, perhaps also in the other place, the Government should seriously consider setting up a consultative council that comprises senior Ministers and senior representatives of Opposition parties in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and the rest of the UK.
The aim of such a council would be, inter alia, to establish harmonious and efficient working relationships and practices between the two Assemblies, the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. I know that the Procedure Committee is seeking to consult us on matters connected with what I have outlined, such as the continuing role of Select and Grand Committees, Question Time in this place, and legislation. There are still matters to be determined, and relationships need to be established on an harmonious basis.
The Council of the Isles has an utterly different role to play in the scheme of things, so I urge the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to the idea of a consultative council. I do not have time to go into detail about the idea now, but I believe that Ministers and the leaders of the opposition parties in all four bodies will need to come together so that we can avoid, among other dangers, references to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Our representatives, in both government and opposition parties, can establish a fair passage for the two Assemblies and the Parliaments.
I finish by offering my compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her colleagues, and others on both sides of the House, especially members of the Social Democratic and Labour party, for their work


over the years. I have long admired those who argue in a peaceable and democratic way for dramatic constitutional change. That is why I have long admired my hon. Friends in the SDLP who sit on the Government Benches with me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, this is a remarkable moment in our history. The legislation that we are passing will have profound consequences, both intended and unintended, and this United Kingdom of ours will never be the same again.

Mr. William Ross: The closing sentence by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) was deadly accurate: the United Kingdom will never be the same again—because it will not exist. That is the inevitable consequence of the three constitutional Bills that have been passed in this Session of Parliament, and we had better come to terms with it. I think that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are now starting to realise, albeit dimly, what the consequences will be. It will certainly mean that, over the years ahead, the United Kingdom will cease to exist as we know it—or, indeed, at all.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who is sitting grinning on the Back Bench, that when he talked about the changes in the Irish constitution and about uniting the diverse elements within Ireland, it would have been better if he had adopted the traditional Unionist position, which was that this archipelago of islands was one natural geographic, cultural and political unity, from which great good could flow, and did flow when it was united. It will be immeasurably diminished not only by the Bill before us but by the other constitutional Bills that have gone through the House this Session.
I remind those who have spoken from the Government Benches that the Social Democratic and Labour party, as an Irish nationalist party, walked out of Stormont—26 years ago, I believe—over the shooting of two persons in Londonderry. It then transferred its reason for withdrawal from that issue to bloody Sunday, whenever the issue arose. We need to look carefully at the history, and at the rewriting and revision of history that has taken place in some quarters.
Much of the debate about the Bill has revolved round the question whether the Prime Minister's criteria for membership of the Northern Ireland executive have been met. We have exposed the hypocrisy of the words and guarantees given. Although that debate was largely about whether the IRA and the other terrorists met the criteria set by the Government and the agreement, my objections—and, I suspect, those of many others—to the agreement and the Bill run far deeper.
I refer to the nature of the governing structure, which is far removed from the policies set out and followed by the Unionist party for many years. It is also far from the position set out by the Ulster Unionist party leadership on entering the talks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said on 20 July 1998, as is recorded in column 828 of the Hansard report, that, in order to reach agreement with the SDLP, we had to move towards a form of Executive—a massive shift from the position that the Unionist party had taken up.
The arrangement is far from the sort of local government structure on which we stood for election. It is a full-blown power-sharing structure. I have never been

in favour of that: I never put it in my election manifesto, and I never will. My right hon. Friend also told us on 20 July that he supported the concept of an effective coalition with the SDLP in 1975. At least we can give him credit for being consistent in that respect. At that time, he was a member of the Vanguard party with Mr. Bill Craig, and went along with his concept of a voluntary power-sharing arrangement.
The arrangement in the Bill is very different, and goes much further. It creates a coalition not between the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP, but between the Unionist party, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. The First Minister and his deputy are in effect Siamese twins, who must agree before any action is taken. I cannot see the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) allowing anything that would upset Sinn Fein, because those two Ministers, like the Ministers who are chatting on the Front Bench now, are intent on keeping the IRA aboard.
Given the practical workings of the power-sharing arrangement, I fear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann, the leader of my party, has placed himself in a very weak position with regard to what he can actually do in the Assembly. In that classic form of power-sharing we have not rule by the majority, but rule by the minority, who can always wreck things by walking out if they do not get their way.
I believe that the whole edifice is not only an insult to normal democratic standards but unworkable. Indeed, not many years ago the power-sharing concept was described as unworkable by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). That is on the record. Because the arrangement is unworkable it will fail, creating misery that could and should have been avoided by setting our sights on achieving what is workable rather than trying to create what is inherently unstable and unworkable.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said during our debates that if no satisfactory amendments were made he would vote against. Unfortunately my right hon. Friend is absent this morning, but his is advice which, despite his absence, we are content to follow with regard to the Bill.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am under severe time pressure, although I would very much like to debate with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Suffice it to say that as I listened to his speech, and one other speech that I have heard this morning, I saw but a continuation of the violence and the desperate situation of the past 25 years, rather than the cure to it, which the Bill gives us the best chance for years of bringing about.
I shall make three quick points. First, I reiterate and underline what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said—that it would be a tragedy if we so construed events of violence, and went chasing after them to such an extent, that we excluded from the process those who can bring about its success.
We must look at violence as it occurs in the real world. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) talked about the difference between so-called military activities and so-called civil—I prefer the word "criminal"—activity. We have to look at such activities in the light of what they actually are, and their intention. There is no naivety whatever in what I say.
Secondly, a continuation of the bipartisan approach is absolutely essential. The Opposition have handled the Bill admirably and the spirit in the Chamber has been very good. The Opposition were perfectly within their rights to move amendments to the legislation and it is significant that clause 23, the area of the Bill that refers to violence, is a central concern. When the Bill is passed and the Assembly is up and running, the House must stand back from the inevitable disputes that will occur within it. It will not help the Assembly if we involve ourselves in those inevitable internal disputes. We must let Assembly Members sort them out for themselves.
Lastly, the Minister made it clear that the British-Irish Council is a body with Executive membership. That leaves the way clear for interparliamentary activity and, as my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) have said, for a continuation of the British parliamentary body—a committee of which will meet in this building in 10 minutes. That body involves two sovereign Parliaments and that arrangement should continue. Further interparliamentary activity with the devolved Assembly is an admirable, but a different, thing.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have heard some amazing statements in this debate. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made the accusation that hon. Members on this side of the House will cause the same sort of violence in Northern Ireland that we have seen over the past decade. That is an outrageous statement for any hon. Member to make about his colleagues opposite, and of course it is completely and totally false. However, some of us would not expect very much more from the hon. Gentleman. He went on to say that we should not chase individual acts of violence, but I suggest that it is violent people who are chasing and killing the innocent. Thus it is outrageous to say that hon. Members should not expose acts of violence.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, also made an amazing statement when he said that the legislation will restore normalisation to Northern Ireland. There is nothing normal about this legislation. Even the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) conceded that it is an amazing Bill and he referred to its intended and unintended consequences. I do not know what the latter might be, but that was also an incredible statement.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) should be congratulated. The hon. Member for Foyle told me at least 100 times that the first IRA ceasefire was for real, and then we had the Canary wharf bombing. When I talked to him about the second supposed ceasefire, I asked, "How are we expected to believe you when you told me 100 times that the first ceasefire was for real when it was not?" How can we believe that this ceasefire is for real?
We have seen the IRA continue with violence. Although it is an outlawed organisation under the terms of the legislation that we considered recently, it is immune from any judgment by the Government and its terrorist prisoners will be allowed out of gaol and on to the streets. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred

to the bleak speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). However, it will be a very bleak day when terrorists—some of whom have committed multiple murders—are on the streets of Northern Ireland inside 24 months.
If the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to support the legislation so much, why is there a plea about insensitivity? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who advocated this position to the Unionist people, is not here to vote for the legislation. His deputy, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), is not here to vote for the legislation and the two Members of the Ulster Unionist party who support the right hon. Gentleman are not here either. However, all the other Unionists are present in the Chamber and they will vote against the legislation. That is the message that the House must wake up to: it needs a baptism of reality.
I have learned from my experience in the House over many years that hon. Members do not want to be told things that they do not want to hear. However, they need to hear that the people of Northern Ireland are not overwhelmingly behind this Bill or this Assembly. That might be a source of great glee to the Minister, who sits and laughs on the Front Bench. However, there will be little laughter when people are murdered on the streets and the Secretary of State excuses those murders at the Dispatch Box by saying that she has made a balanced judgment and that the murderers may stay on in the Government of Northern Ireland.
No one in Northern Ireland with any sense wants terrorists in the Government and we will have no truck with their governing the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In the few minutes remaining before the House divides on the Third Reading, I want to record that this is an extremely historic occasion. Many congratulations are due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on all that she has done since taking office to introduce the Bill and offer the hope of peace and reconciliation within the six counties of Northern Ireland. She has provided some hope to the young people of that Province.
Labour Members should also pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who has done much to promote the issue of Ireland in debates within the party, especially when he was an Opposition spokesman for Northern Ireland. He correctly drew attention to the role played by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in securing the Hume-Adams accord, which I think has been the basis of the second ceasefire and, ultimately, the process of reconciliation in this very balanced, but very complicated, legislation. It encompasses economic, human rights and equal opportunities issues and many other elements that offer real hope for the future.
I have the honour to represent a constituency which comprises a large Irish community. Many of those people have come to this country in order to escape the poverty of Ireland, but they have often found poverty and discrimination here as well. They and many others look forward to a time when discrimination is behind us and there is real hope and equal opportunities for all the peoples of Ireland.
It occurs to me that the House has debated the subject of Ireland more than any other in the hundreds of years since the British invasion of that country. There have been many problems throughout that period and some people have claimed that Ireland has no future and have sought to promote sectarian divides. Last week, I was given a copy of the 1799 secret report on Ireland—another example of the long debate on Ireland—which reproduces the entire statement of the Founding Conference of the Society of United Irishmen. It sets out the aim of uniting Catholic and Protestant people in the hope of achieving a united Ireland that is equal and represented throughout the island of Ireland. In that spirit, I hope that the House will agree to the Third Reading of the Bill. We look forward to peace, hope and reconciliation in Ireland in the future.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 8.

Division No. 356]
[10.58 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cox, Tom


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cran, James


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Alexander, Douglas
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atherton, Ms Candy
Denham, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Dismore, Andrew


Austin, John
Dobbin, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Drew, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Berry, Roger
Efford, Clive


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blackman, Liz
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blears, Ms Hazel
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gapes, Mike


Brake, Tom
Garnier, Edward


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burnett, John
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Casale, Roger
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hammond, Philip


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hawkins, Nick


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Coleman, Iain
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Colman, Tony
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hurst, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corston, Ms Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam





Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jenkin, Bernard
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rammell, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kemp, Fraser
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Key, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Kidney, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Savidge, Malcolm


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Lepper, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Leslie, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAllion, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Soley, Clive


McDonagh, Siobhain
Spellar, John


McDonnell, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


McGrady, Eddie
Squire, Ms Rachel


McIsaac, Shona
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNulty, Tony
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McWalter, Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John



Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meale, Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mitchell, Austin
Timms, Stephen


Moffatt, Laura
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morley, Elliot
Vis, Dr Rudi


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Ward, Ms Claire


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
White, Brian


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wills, Michael


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Winnick, David


Olner, Bill
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Öpik, Lembit
Wise, Audrey


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wood, Mike


Pearson, Ian
Wyatt, Derek


Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L
Mr. David Jamieson and


Pollard, Kerry
Mr. Keith Hill.




NOES


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Forsythe, Clifford
Thompson, William


Hunter, Andrew



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Roy Beggs and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Rev. Martin Smyth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

It being after Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Orders of the Day — Roads Review

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about our strategic review of trunk roads, the report on which, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", is published today. I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and to my noble Friend Baroness Hayman for their tremendous work on the review, of which I and my colleagues have been the beneficiaries. Copies of the report explaining our decisions will be available in the Vote Office after this statement. I have sent details to all Members of Parliament with English constituencies.
The Government are committed to modernisation and prudent public finances. Those themes formed the backdrop to the roads review. The outcome is not the grandiose but impractical notions of our predecessors, but realistic, practical decisions that will help business, help people and help Britain.
Trunk roads are vital for business and personal travel. They carry a third of passenger traffic and more than half of freight. Traffic is expected to grow over the next 20 years by about 50 per cent. By 2016, a quarter of our trunk roads will be seriously congested if we do nothing, so to do nothing is not an option. We need a new approach, building on that set out in our integrated transport White Paper. "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" is based on the fundamental principle that trunk roads must have a central role in our integrated national transport system.
There are four other key points in our approach. We will make better use of the existing network—building new roads will not be the first option—help motorists by investing more in road maintenance; reduce the negative impact of trunk roads on people and the environment through safer roads and less noise, pollution and intrusion; and ensure that trunk road planning is integrated with regional land use and transport strategies.
We are giving the Highways Agency new objectives, putting more emphasis on its role as the operator of the network rather than simply a road builder. We intend to consider options for charging users on trunk roads and using the revenue to maintain and improve the network and provide new income streams for the Highways Agency. We have already announced that we are considering continuing charging on the Dartford crossing and using the income to help to deliver integrated transport objectives on the M25. Today, I can announce that projects to make better use of the network will benefit from 60 per cent. more funding by 2001–02.
Roads are a vital national asset which has been poorly maintained. Without a change in direction, the state of the roads will worsen. We shall begin to put that right. We have already increased the provision for capital maintenance of roads by 50 per cent. for the current year. I am pleased to tell the House today that, in addition, maintenance spending overall will go up by a further 20 per cent. by 2001–02. We shall progressively tackle the backlog and maintain trunk roads at minimum whole-life costs. Together with our proposals to encourage less damaging six-axle lorries, that strategy will save money, enhance safety and reduce disruption.
The trunk road network has a good safety record and we shall establish targets to reduce road casualties further. I am pleased to announce that we have set up a ring-fenced budget for small safety projects that will grow steadily to £50 million in 2001–02.
Well-planned bypasses and certain other road improvements can improve the environment and transform towns and villages without doing serious harm to the countryside. The key is to ensure that the environment is given full weight from the outset. From now on, there will be a strong presumption against new roads affecting environmentally sensitive sites.
In that context, the House will be pleased to know that we are reducing the number of sites of special scientific interest affected by the programme from 49 to eight. We will also use low-noise surfaces for new roads and, where appropriate, when an existing road is resurfaced. We will also have a dedicated budget to tackle some of the most difficult existing noise problems.
Getting the planning framework right is absolutely crucial. I can outline three measures to ensure that such a framework is put in place. First, future trunk road planning will be part of the regional planning system and set in the context of the overall transport and land use strategy for each region.
Secondly, we propose to transfer about 40 per cent. of the existing trunk road network to local highway authorities. Those roads should be managed by local authorities as part of local transport plans.
Thirdly, we have ended the discredited "predict and provide" approach to road building. Instead, our new appraisal approach is based on the five criteria of integration, environment, safety, the economy and accessibility. The new approach will become an increasingly important tool for appraising alternative options across all forms of transport.
For the first time ever, we conducted a wide-ranging public consultation on our review of the trunk roads programme, with meetings in each region, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh played a prominent part. My noble Friend Baroness Hayman met Members of Parliament to hear their views. About 14,000 written representations were received. Together, that gave us a clear picture of regional priorities.
For the first time ever, we analysed objectively the problems that we were seeking to address using broadly based criteria; for the first time ever, we have provided financial stability through our three-year spending programme and seven-year transport investment plan, which will enable our programmes to go ahead; for the first time ever, we have a practical and focused programme. Gone is our predecessors' massive wish list of 150 schemes, most of which would never have been built, over a time scale that was never specified and for which money was never assured.
We have considered the schemes that could be started in the foreseeable future and produced a programme that is funded and delivers our objectives. That comprises the 37 schemes in our targeted programme of improvements, all of which can be started within seven years.
The largest category is safety and healthier communities, reflecting the importance that we attach to those objectives. The programme includes much-needed


bypasses that will take large volumes of traffic out of towns and villages, thereby improving the quality of life. It also includes schemes designed to improve sections with poor accident rates.
The next category, regeneration and integration, includes junction improvements to remove bottlenecks that are hampering development; dualling schemes to improve access to remote areas; and schemes to facilitate access to a rail freight terminal and an airport. The final category, jobs and prosperity, includes schemes to deal with bottlenecks and other schemes needed to support economic growth in particular locations.
Many of the schemes not gone ahead with reflect serious transport problems that need to be addressed. There will be a programme of studies to consider practical options and develop integrated transport solutions. The House will not expect me to give details of every scheme, but I should cover two particular issues.
The motorway network is the core of the road system and is essential to the nation's economy. A number of schemes for widening the existing motorway network were under consideration. We had to balance their potential economic benefits against the impact on the environment and local communities. In some cases, such as proposals to widen the M6 between junctions 11A and 19, we propose to study all integrated transport options, including shifting traffic from road to rail, in order to develop the best integrated transport solution to deal with serious problems on that important route between Birmingham and Manchester. For the first time, we have brought together Railtrack and the Highways Agency under a concordat that allows them to work together on such problems.
The M25 is a strategic motorway important to the entire country. It is severely congested, and that is bad for the economy and the environment. There are no easy answers. We need a package of measures including traffic and demand management and attractive public transport alternatives. We are setting in hand a major study to develop such solutions. Meanwhile, we propose a number of short-term measures, such as closed circuit television cameras covering the whole motorway and the extension of variable speed limits. We shall also investigate using the hard shoulder as a climbing lane, subject to safety considerations.
However, problems between junction 12, with the M3, and junction 15, with the M4, are so acute that providing some extra capacity has to be part of the strategy. It is the most heavily used section of our motorway network, with flows of up to 200,000 vehicles a day. The most up-to-date traffic management measures have already been applied to that section. More capacity is needed to allow a breathing space while wider integrated transport policies take effect, and to allow for gradual introduction of necessary traffic and demand management strategies. We have concluded, therefore, that the widening scheme should go ahead, but we are cancelling two other widening schemes on the M25 between junctions 15 and 19.
One other scheme brings together economic, environmental and heritage issues. Stonehenge is unique. It is a world heritage site. Yet its setting has been described by the Public Accounts Committee as a "national disgrace". The solution developed by my Department, by the Department of Culture, Media and

Sport and by English Heritage is to put the 2 km section of the A303 that passes the stones in a cut and covered tunnel. At least a third of the costs will be found from heritage sources. The scheme will have major heritage and environmental benefits. It will remove a bottleneck and improve traffic flow on the A303. Above all, perhaps, it shows what can be achieved by cross-departmental working and integrated transport thinking.
Judgments about roads are never easy. The policy that I have announced today is good for the economy because it gives priority to maintenance, to making best use of an asset, and to investing in a number of urgent schemes. It is good for safety and the environment. We have dramatically reduced the number of sites of special scientific interest affected by the programme. It makes good financial sense with a practical, deliverable, programme for the future. "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" sets out a radical approach to trunk road policy that is based firmly on our integrated transport strategy. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making available to me a copy of his statement and the report at the correct time. All hon. Members will have found it helpful to have had individual copies of the parts of the report appropriate to their constituencies. I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I congratulate him, and I wish him well. We regret that his post has been demoted from Cabinet rank, feeling that that illustrates the Government's attitude to transport. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will perform his task well. I only hope that his ministerial career will not be affected by the poisoned chalice that he has been handed today. I am delighted that he has made an oral statement. It has come at the last possible moment, but that was not of his doing.
The previous Conservative Government laid down the principles on which an integrated approach to transport policy should be based, as the Secretary of State was generous enough to acknowledge last week. There was general agreement that road building must be carefully appraised, and responsible use of the car encouraged. The previous Government also indicated an end to the predict and provide strategy.
If we felt that the roads review was doing all that, we would welcome it. However, it demonstrates that the Secretary of State lacks the clout to establish transport as the priority promised before the general election. Even given the hugely increased spending plans announced in the comprehensive spending review, the Secretary of State was rolled over by the Treasury. As a result, the travelling public are getting a triple whammy. Road users will pay more in fuel taxes, congestion charges, workplace parking charges and motorway tolls; there will be no early improvement in public transport to encourage people to use the roads less; and, today the right hon. Gentleman has announced that the main strategy to achieve his Department's aim is to force people off the roads by increasing congestion and jams.
I have a number of questions for the right hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm the answer that the Minister for Transport in London gave on 27 July to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that less money will be spent next year on road construction and


maintenance than was spent this year? If the position has altered in the light of his announcement, can he tell us by how much and in what way?
The right hon. Gentleman confirmed that only 37 of the 140 schemes under consideration have been given the go-ahead. He said that construction of those schemes is due to begin during the next seven years. However, the comprehensive spending review identified spending totals only for the next three years. What assurance can he give that the 37 schemes will both start and reach completion?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no increase in the comprehensive spending review for local authority spending on roads maintenance? What message does he think that conveys to local authorities when he is proposing that they take on greater responsibility for the roads network? Will he define "minimum whole-life costs"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the so-called extra funds for maintenance are derived either from reducing subsidies to privatised rail companies—if he does, will he be generous enough to withdraw his Government's objection to the principle of privatisation—or from the total removal of subsidy from London Underground by 2000? I asked the Secretary of State last week, but he was unable or unwilling to answer, what investment is expected from the private sector between now and 2000 to justify that removal. What happens if it is wrong? Does Rail Maritime Transport share the Secretary of State's aspirations?
The answer given by the Minister for Transport in London on 27 July states that spending on bypasses is to be halved next year, from £157 million this year with one start, to £82 million next year. Does that mean a half start? What hope does the right hon. Gentleman hold out to the 500 communities that, with Friends of the Earth, see relief from congestion and pollution arising from properly planned and constructed bypasses? How many of those communities will today be disappointed?
What contribution does today's statement make to the Government's ability to meet their stated carbon dioxide emissions targets and their commitments under the Kyoto agreement?
We welcome the setting up of properly resourced and equipped regional traffic control centres. Given that so many of the road schemes that the Minister has today delayed or scrapped have been the subject of reviews because of congestion problems, how quickly does he envisage road users experiencing real improvements on, say, the M1 and the M6? Many will be listening to his reply as they sit in jams and I do not think that further studies will be much comfort to them.
One notable exception to the Government's general approach to road improvements and road building, for which the right hon. Gentleman gave some explanation, is the M25. I am sure that he would like to confirm to the House that the Government have changed their mind, and widening that road is no longer lunacy.
Now that the Government have published a transport White Paper designed to reduce dependency on the car, will the Department be publishing revised forecasts for traffic growth, based on the success of their policies?
The Deputy Prime Minister said that the country was in the mood for radical change in transport policy and that he was in the mood to give it to them. After all his promises of immediate benefits for the travelling public, all the hype, the glossy publications and the media opportunities for the right hon. Gentleman to prove his public transport credentials by standing at a bus stop before sweeping off in the ministerial Jaguar, the radical change amounts to more taxes for motorists, less investment in transport overall and the certainty of more gridlock on the roads. The long-delayed roads review, far from achieving the immediate benefits that the right hon. Gentleman promised, is in fact delivering more delay, more planning blight and yet more Government reviews. Jams today, jams tomorrow, jams until after the next election—that is the Government's transport policy.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): One hundred and fifteen questions.

Dr. Reid: I shall attempt to answer only 110 of those questions. First, I thank the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for her congratulations and am deeply moved by her concern about my future career prospects, but I think that I would rather take care of them. The fact that no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister is in charge of the Department is a sign of the priority that we place on transport. As for the right hon. Lady's other questions, I shall avoid answering those that were merely personal abuse.
The right hon. Lady asked whether less money was being spent on investment in, and the maintenance of, trunk roads next year and the answer is no. Spending will increase by £52 million during the next year, as I have managed to discover in the 72 hours that I have been in the Department, so I am glad to be able to enlighten the right hon. Lady on that matter. There will be an extra £470 million for trunk roads in the next three years—the comprehensive spending review period—and, in addition, in the longer term, extra money will become available from our income streams.
On privatisation, we have made it plain that an integrated transport policy means the integration of all forms of transport, cross-departmental working and a partnership between the public and private sectors. The difference between the previous Conservative Government and our Government is that we are not driven by a blind ideology down the pathway of one form of ownership. We want the public and private sectors to work together.
On the Kyoto summit, we shall be producing a document to outline our detailed response in the autumn. As for road maintenance, we have restored the cuts that took place under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What about money for local authority roads maintenance?

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek interrupting as he does, when the Conservative Government, after 18 years, left us in a worse mess than any other Government have done. I shall give one example. The right hon. Lady had the brass neck to criticise us implicitly about bypasses. We have given the go-ahead for


15. The highest number in any year during the 18 years of Conservative control of the transport system was 16, so this year, we have almost reached the highest figure that the Tories ever managed to achieve. Their record in their last three years was as follows: in 1994–95, they started the sum total of three bypasses; in 1995–96, they started one; and in 1996–97, they started one. So, this year we are starting three times more than they did in their last three years and they ought to consider those figures before they speak.
In reality, the previous Government had 18 years during which they did not even begin to think about such issues. They did not carry out an annual review and, indeed, did not even carry out one every decade. They spent tens of millions preparing schemes and then dropped them when they realised that they could not afford them, for example when they prepared their grandiose plans to build link roads around the M25 only to abandon them. They said that they did not believe in predict and provide, but acted as though they did during that period. Every year, they produced a fantasy football league of hundreds of road schemes, which were never funded, planned or carried out and for which no time scale was delivered. We are offering a policy programme based on a rational analysis, which is practical, and which is funded—we have laid out the funding—and can be delivered within a specified time. That is a marked improvement on the 18 years of the previous Government.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first sane and sensible attempt, certainly for the past 20 years, to get a transport policy that will deliver not only safety schemes but improvements that will have an immediate economic and environmental benefit? It will be most warmly welcomed throughout the United Kingdom. The situation as regards road maintenance is now dangerous, as he will be aware, and we welcome his commitment to do something about it urgently. Finally, any Government who are prepared to put road safety, environmental planning and the commitment of ordinary householders to a peaceful life at the top of their list of action should be wholly commended.

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chairman responsible for transport on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and whose views on those matters we always listen to with respect. I welcome her comments about a more rational balance and a planned and integrated approach. I entirely agree that far too little attention has been paid to maintenance. Finally, as I understand from a brief comment she made as she entered the Chamber that she has not yet received her letter, I am pleased to be able to inform her that one of the 15 bypasses that I mentioned is in her area and I am sure that she will welcome that news.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I begin by congratulating the Minister on his new role. However, in presenting the report, the right hon. Gentleman needs to be clear in his own mind whether it is an announcement of a huge cut in the road programme, as he started off by saying, or whether it is a massive increase, as his final comments to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman suggested. The truth is that the majority of schemes have been not cancelled but delayed, and the outcome of the reviews will establish whether this is really a new deal on roads.
Can the Minister explain why the Government, who, pre-election, described widening the M25 and the Birmingham northern relief road as "madness" have gone ahead with both? That expenditure is unwise when some important village bypasses have been cancelled. Most importantly, if this is joined-up thinking and an integrated transport strategy, can he detail how much has been saved by the postponement and cancellation of road schemes and how much is being spent on increased investment in public transport as a result of the announcement? It seems that the Chancellor has done better out of this than the new Minister and that the statement is rather more Brown than green.

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know that he is the Liberal transport spokesman. I presume that they are as united on transport as on every other thing, so I await the six other views on transport from those on the Liberal Benches.
On joined-up thinking, in comparison with what went before, and with the Liberals, this is not merely joined-up but positively seamless. It starts with a rational review and a policy basis rather than what has happened in the past: a long list largely determined, in practice, by the Treasury and determined presentationally by choosing a number and doubling it. We want to get away from that. It involves hard choices.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that I had talked about the volume of the road scheme. I did not claim at the end that it was a massive increase. I talked about the fantasy football league figures used previously in the Tory wish list, which sometimes had 150 schemes; they were up to 500 at one stage. If we wished to continue that, we could announce that, at some indefinite stage in the next millennium, we had 1,000 on our list and cost them at £12 billion or £15 billion like the Tories did but everyone, especially business men, motorists and the Road Haulage Association, would know that none would be delivered because they were purely presentational. We are taking hard decisions, but we believe that it is better to be honest with people than to try to delude them by presenting large numbers.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not received his letter but glad that he did not get it before asking his question. We could not start the A30 Bodmin to Indian Queens improvement, which he supports, sufficiently quickly—within the seven-year period—to make it one of the 36 roads in our targeted improvement programme. We shall give it full appraisal. After that, and the statutory procedures, it will be taken forward without delay.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the statement. It is particularly welcome that we are getting rid of the idea that we move traffic jams around the country. Each new bypass merely moves the jam from one place to the next. If we are to make much better use of our trunk roads, can my right hon. Friend address two problems: controlling speed and making sure that limits are observed for the safety of the people living close to roads; and ensuring that roads are not so often blocked by thoughtless parking?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee. He has


expertise on both speed and parking. We are looking at those issues. There is a review of speed limits and variable speed limits.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman's first statement in his new job should be such an appalling announcement. If he cared to drive from Scotland to Portsmouth, he would find that the first traffic lights are at Hindhead. That is the only single carriageway stretch on the A3 and holds the secret to the regeneration of Portsmouth. It is landscape of international significance. The pollution and the danger to local people are appalling. The time for studies is over. The threat of tolls will be regarded with contempt by local people who already face the rat runs. Can anything persuade him, after delegations, Adjournment debates, petitions and representations from environmentalists, business interests and the residents' association?

Dr. Reid: I understand the right hon. Lady's disappointment. She had a project on what I described earlier as the large wish list. I hope that her disappointment has not jaundiced her view of my whole statement. The problem with wish lists is that they went on indefinitely without dedicated funding. They were unspecified. Perhaps one reason for her disappointment is that, for many years, her project was on such a list. It was never implemented. She was a member of the Government who did not implement it, although she had some influence with the Government and the Department of Transport. I recognise her disappointment, but all the years of Conservative Government with the project on their list are a perfect illustration of how putting presentation above substance, as they did on those matters, ultimately creates only disillusionment. The scheme could not start sufficiently quickly to be considered for our targeted investment programme. It is not completely abandoned but on hold. It will be considered in the proposed A3-Hindhead study.

Mr. John McDonnell: Heathrow is in my constituency, and the Minister will appreciate the concern of many of my constituents that the announcement of the widening of the M25 is a trigger for building terminal 5 at Heathrow. Given that concern, and the integral link between the M25 and terminal 5, why was the widening of the M25 not referred to the terminal 5 inquiry for the inspector to comment on? Can he give a categorical assurance to the House and to my constituents that this in no way pre-empts the decision on terminal 5 development?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend knows that any schemes associated with Heathrow terminal 5 development are being considered at the public inquiry. This was a separate study. The decision was taken on its own merits. It was a free-standing study. It would not have been appropriate to link it in any way with another project in the same area for which a public inquiry was already under way. Junctions 12 to 15 are in the targeted programme for improvement, and the scheme will be accompanied by an effective demand management and traffic control strategy.
I realise that my hon. Friend is on the losing side of the argument on this matter, but I point out that we considered the whole scheme in great detail. He knows that there was

a much more extensive proposal for widening the M25, large sections of which were rejected by us because of the wider considerations. We should like to have been in a position where it would have been possible to consider not proceeding with widening. That would have been a better world for all of us, but we inherited not that world but the one we got from the previous Government. On that section of the M25, the congestion is so bad and so many things have been tried that there was no alternative but to proceed.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman at least on inheriting and continuing Conservative policy on the Great Barford bypass and the Clapham bypass, on the decision to seek private money for the Bedford western bypass and on the go-ahead for the Tempsford flyover. However, may I ask him to clarify something in the context of this new deal, which makes us fearful that it is a new deal of less money for bypasses? Can the citizens of Great Barford expect an early start to a bypass that is necessary on every one of the five criteria that the Government have put forward?

Dr. Reid: There is never a greater exercise in circumlocution than a Conservative with good news from a Labour Government trying to make out that it is all the product of the previous Conservative Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt welcome the fact that the Clapham bypass and the Great Barford A421 bypass, which he supports, are in our targeted programme. The Tempsford junction improvements, which he supports, have been given the go-ahead following a positive recommendation by the inspector who held the public inquiry in February. I should have thought that it would be sufficient just to give plaudits to the Government for their wise decisions without demanding the exact day on which the schemes will start.

Mr. John McWilliam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend both on his statement and promotion; mind you, it is the first time that he has been PC in his life. Will he confirm that the improvements, which are being designed with the local authority, to the A1 bypass in my constituency in the vicinity of the Metro centre are in the programme, because I have not received my letter yet, and whether the necessary safety improvements to the A1 north of Morpeth, which is an extremely dangerous road, are in the programme as well?

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his politically correct remarks. I have to admit my ignorance on that particular scheme. I will see him immediately afterwards. I have not, in the three days that I have been at the Department, been able to remember all 137 decisions, but I shall ensure that the answer is communicated to him as quickly as possible.

Mr. Robert Key: I warmly welcome the Minister's commitment to build the Stonehenge project within seven years. He knows that he can rely on me to give him every encouragement to ensure that it actually happens. Will he join me in thanking the National Trust for its constructive and helpful attitude in abandoning its objections to the building of a road on inalienable property? Will he ensure, however, that a grade separated


junction is built at the western end, and that not only the Winterbourne Stoke bypass, for which we are very grateful, but the Chicklade bypass is built? Perhaps more important, will he explain how the one third of funding for the project is going to come out of the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and whether that will mean national lottery money, or money that is taken directly from the Department's budget?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the scheme. On its funding, the details of which I shall communicate to him, I think that he is mistaken, but I shall want to clarify the exact technical details of it and write to him. The scheme does include the bypass of Winterbourne Stoke, as he said. I have noted his comments on the other matters that he has raised.
In general terms, today's decision on Stonehenge is very good news for the House. It shows that we have moved away from the days when we regarded trunk roads or other roads in an isolated fashion, just as concrete and as the only solution on every occasion. We have been able to highlight today our integrated approach by cross-departmental agreement, for which I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but we have also been able to illustrate that transport is much more than just a link between areas: it is a method of access to elements of our history and heritage and therefore makes a major contribution to the quality of life. We have been able to do that today with the Stonehenge announcement, which is welcome news for the House as well as for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I express my delight at the fantastic, magnificent and far-sighted announcement that the A650 Bingley relief road has been given the go ahead by a Labour Government—something which the Tories failed to do over such a long period? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that scheme will improve the health and environment of my constituents and bring improvements for integrated public transport?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that plans are already in the offing in Bingley to commemorate the local heroes from the ministerial team at the Department? St. John of Bingley is one suggestion that has been made.

Dr. Reid: Because of my hon. Friend's work, this, perhaps of all the announcements, will give greater delight throughout the House than any other. I know that we traditionally have a Father of the House; I do not know whether we have a Child of the House. However, the rational but active and dynamic campaign that my hon. Friend has run on this issue has been a credit to him. Although he has been in the House for only a short period, it bodes extremely well for his future.
The Bingley relief road, of which my hon. Friend has been the most serious and effective advocate, is in our targeted investment programme. It will improve safety and the environment, and I am very glad that we were able to announce the scheme in our statement. Had it been on the list of the previous Government, he may have got it somewhere around his 74th birthday. I am glad that we shall be able to deliver that somewhat earlier.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion.
With regard to the A46 Lincoln to Newark road, I think that the Minister will understand the concern in the county of Lincolnshire. Would he be good enough to tell the House whether he can guarantee that the bypass will be started before the end of the seven-year period, and can he in particular tell us when it will start?
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that three Lincoln roads have been detruncked: the A17 to King's Lynn, the A15 to the M180 and the A57 to Sheffield. They now become the responsibility of the local authority. Is he proposing to transfer to the local authority money to maintain those roads equivalent to what is currently spent under the national responsibility?

Dr. Reid: On the general decision, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. The A46 Newark to Lincoln improvement is in the targeted programme for a number of reasons. Rational decision making is assisted by the five criteria: accessibility, safety, environment, economic development and integration. This scheme will improve safety, and journey reliability and assist in the regeneration of Lincolnshire, so it was very important that it went through.
On the start date, if we did not believe that the bypass would start within seven years, it would not have been in the target list. We have made hard decisions and schemes were excluded, not because we thought that they were not worthy schemes, but because we had to set a reasonable time frame for the start of schemes before we gave concrete promises. Therefore, I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the exact date when it will start, but I can assure him that it will be in the programme.
On local authorities, there will be methods of ensuring that a fair amount of money is transferred for maintenance. That will be dealt with in further documentation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: While joining in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the decisions he has taken, I want also to congratulate him on listening to the earnest pleas of Hull Members of Parliament for the Hedon road improvements, which are important to the economic integrity of Yorkshire, to the full opening of the port to ensure better facilities for our trade with northern Europe, and to the development of land in the area to improve employment prospects. It is a good decision.
When the Minister comes to consider the main motorways, I urge him to promote a campaign for lane discipline. So often on the M1 and the M6, the inside lane is empty while motorists are hogging the central lane, which not only causes great delays but encourages dangerous driving, with people trying to overtake on the inside. It also encourages road rage. A campaign for lane discipline on motorways would go a great way towards solving some of the problems.

Dr. Reid: I have noted my hon. Friend's thanks to our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The scheme is included in the programme because it met the criteria. It is a good and important scheme which will relieve congestion and create jobs and prosperity. I am glad that the Hedon road scheme on the A1033 is part of our targeted list.
On my hon. Friend's point about the M6, the problems that he identified are important matters of management, which we will be looking at carefully. In a more general


sense, it is precisely one reason why we are shifting the Highways Agency from simply being a road building agency to being an agency that will have to look at and give effect to much wider considerations, including management. It will have to deploy a tool kit of ideas and practical proposals that span a much wider area than just road building. Management, maintenance, upkeep and rational use of our resources have been ignored for years.
The M6 exemplifies the problem. A railway line that is underused runs almost parallel, for miles and miles, to a road that is greatly overused. Surely it is a matter of common sense and balance to consider the two together and determine how to make best use of present resources, as well as considering future road building, rather than exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction to everything and saying, "Let's build a new road." To do that would leave many of our roads in the mess that so many of them were left in when the previous Government left office.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I wish the Minister Godspeed in dealing with all the studies to which he has committed himself today. There is no time scale for the west midlands area study. For how long will business commuters and home owners continue to suffer from the uncertainty over proposals for motorways in their area?

Dr. Reid: I am aware that the hon. Lady is concerned about blight in her area. The widening of the M42 has been remitted to the west midlands area study, which will address congestion and environmental problems in and around Birmingham and the black country. It will consider the wide range of measures to which I referred earlier, including those that have already been included in the metropolitan transport package.
The hon. Lady need not doubt my capacity for study. I have always taken the simple view that it is better to think before acting—although I understand that that has not always been regarded in every quarter as rational.

Mr. John Hutton: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment and I wish him well for the future. I strongly welcome the strategies and principles that underpin the roads review that he has announced today. At long last, the Government are getting a grip on the shambles we inherited from the Conservative Government.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have today announced that they will not be proceeding with the immediate construction of the Low High Newton bypass on the A590, which is near my constituency—even though the existing plans were endorsed and approved by a full planning inspector's report two years ago. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the review of the environmental impact of the road on the Lake District national park—a perfectly understandable review—will be injected with a sense of urgency so that my constituents can look forward to improvements to that stretch of the road, for which they have been waiting for a long time, and which the previous Government failed to deliver?

Mr. Jenkin: It was in our programme.

Dr. Reid: Everything was in the previous Government's programme, but nothing was ever delivered.
I am glad that my hon. Friend appreciates the nature of the problems with the A590 High and Low Newton bypass, to which he has given great support. A balance must be maintained between the economy and the impact on both the built and natural environment. That is one reason why we shall remit the scheme for further study of safety and environmental impacts.
I could not hear whether my hon. Friend mentioned the A66 Temple Sowerby bypass, which I know he has supported previously. It has not been considered for the target list because its time scale is not sufficiently advanced. However, I am glad to tell him that the A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton bypass, which he also supports, has been included in the target list. That should be some compensation.
Judging by the list of roads that my hon. Friend supports, I can only assume that the large campaign that he ran—when, in my previous incarnation, I was Minister for the Armed Forces—to get two huge aircraft carriers through the strategic defence review now requires him to build at least two huge roads to Barrow-in-Furness, where he will hope to build those carriers.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on his move to his new post, and thank him for the announcement about the A6 Great Glen bypass in my own constituency of Harborough. The pity is that it is not to be started this year, as was intended under the previous Government.

Mr. Prescott: We did not take it out.

Mr. Garnier: If the Deputy Prime Minister would like to leave the Chamber now, I am sure that we should be delighted to see him go.
What are the funding arrangements for the detrunked A6? Will the money be ring-fenced? Will the Leicestershire county council highways authority be required to ensure that the A6 detrunked road competes for money with its other roads programmes? Will the Minister assure us that the money that is to be set aside for the Great Glen bypass will be available, although we are not quite sure when within the seven-year envelope the road is to be built?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his—I think it was a welcome. I was not quite sure whether he was saying that, because he wanted the Great Glen bypass last year, our decision to proceed with it now is fatally flawed and he wants us to withdraw it?

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Dr. Reid: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to explain to me later whether he was requesting that we change our mind and not proceed with it. However, I shall take it that he was not asking for that. I have already said that there will be a fair exchange on money for local authorities—which, as we have clearly stated previously, will be done through the standard spending assessment.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for the small mercies of the decision on the Lamberhurst bypass, which will enable people to


travel a little more speedily to Hastings. May I invite him to come to Hastings to see the problems there of deprivation, low skills and high unemployment? The greatest gift would have been the bypass that we so much needed. I appreciate that, in his letter, he said that he is
still minded to make orders for that scheme, subject to options in improving access to Hastings.
The argument for a bypass has already been made, over many years. Will he ensure that a very early decision is made on implementation of any review? What time scale is likely to apply?

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the Lamberhurst bypass, and realise his deep disappointment on the other matter. Everyone knows—from my short time at the Ministry, even I know—that no one has fought harder than he for his case. He has been absolutely assiduous and energetic in making it. I am also under no illusions that he will now drop his views on the matter, and I realise that he perhaps thinks that we have got it wrong in an extremely important matter. I assure him that either the Secretary of State or I will be pleased to receive representations on the matter should he wish to see us again. I realise just how much importance he places on that specific decision, and I am sorry that I could not be wholly positive about it today.

Mr. Philip Hammond: It seems unfair that, so shortly after his appointment, the Minister should have to come to the Dispatch Box to announce, in respect of the M25 in my constituency, precisely the widening which was described by the Labour party in opposition as "madness", which Labour's then spokesman promised to scrap, and which the Labour candidate in my constituency in the general election promised would be scrapped on day one of a Labour Government. The Minister might want to reflect on police statistics which show that people who do U-turns on motorways seldom survive to tell the tale.
However, I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement that a legitimate use of the billions of pounds in tax that the Government are raising from motorists is the alleviation of the environmental impact on the communities through which motorways pass. Will he confirm to my constituents in Thorpe and Egham that when that section of the M25 is widened, the very latest, state-of-the-art absorbent sound barriers and the best possible porous asphalt surfaces will be used to minimise the impact on them?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He would be churlish not to accept that, unlike the previous Government, the present Government have made it clear that noise abatement will be a serious component of our consideration of new roads and the maintenance of old roads, and an important element in the practical remedies.
As for the M25 decision, the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that I am not in the least disappointed to be at the Dispatch Box—I am not only pleased but honoured to be here. Lest the hon. Gentleman should be in any further doubt, let me say that there has been no U-turn. The principles that we applied to our consideration outlined before the election by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are still the principles on which we take decisions. The Deputy Prime Minister has led the team and the review with consistency throughout.
Unfortunately, we cannot ignore the reality of the world left to us by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. Just one section of the M25 is so bad that there is no conceivable alternative to going ahead with the widening. To do anything else would mean inflicting on something like 200,000 motorists a day more of the misery that they had to suffer during the 18 years of the previous Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The statement has been running for more than an hour. I recognise its importance to Members, but I can let it run for so long only if I have Members' co-operation, which I am not getting. Instead, I am getting long statements and long questions. I want brisk questions to the Minister, and I think that I shall have the Minister's co-operation when he responds. I want to do right by Back Benchers who have an interest in the matter, but they must do right by me and by the House.

Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, especially for not including in it any schemes that have a direct impact on my constituency. The last thing the Reading area requires is more roads. The Thames valley is already congested, and the solution is not to build more roads.
I am pleased to welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that we require an holistic approach to our transport problems. Will he reassure me that the proposed London to Reading corridor study will take an holistic and cross-departmental approach and will not just consider the need to increase capacity along that corridor?

Dr. Reid: Agreed, welcomed and assured.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Minister recognise that the vast bulk of traffic, both private and business, will continue to use the roads as a result of individual decisions made by private motorists and businesses? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will not seek to penalise and to drive off the road, either through neglect of the road system or by other penalties, the vast majority of decision makers who want to use the roads for their own purposes?

Dr. Reid: What will drive people off the roads is the awful congestion in some places. The Government fully support real freedom of choice, but that means the ability to move one's car at more than 2 mph, which is impossible in many parts of the country. Of course we have no intention of adopting a dictatorial or penal attitude. We want to give the motorist and the business man choice, but, in order to do that, we have to use the full range of the assets that we have for moving from A to B. That means taking an integrated, holistic approach involving persuasion, education and putting money into other forms of transport as well as the road network. Throughout, we have followed a broad and balanced approach; it is right for the motorist, for the business man and for our quality of life—as well as for the number of journeys undertaken.

Mr. David Taylor: The people of Kegworth in north-west Leicestershire will welcome the fact that safety and health remain the criteria


for decisions on bypasses. They will be deeply disappointed, however, that it was not possible to go ahead with the A6 bypass, because the projected line of that route and the need for it have existed for 50 years. Will the Minister reassure the people of that area, which lies at the congested heart of the east midlands transport infrastructure, that it might be possible to go ahead with the A6 element of the rather wider scheme in respect of junctions 23A to 25 of the M1, about which I am agnostic? The need for the A6 bypass remains acute.

Dr. Reid: The schemes have not been abandoned, but put on hold for further study. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to have a 50-year timetable and simply add names to the list. The reason schemes were taken off the list was that we were not convinced that they could start within seven years and we did not want to make illusory promises. However, they have certainly not been entirely abandoned.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: My constituents in Epping Forest will be disappointed that the planned improvement to the M11 motorway there has been cancelled. Although I appreciate that the Minister has been in his post for only a few days and may not have had a chance to consider this aspect of the Government's policy, they will be more concerned that he has given no indication as to whether he plans to revise the congestion forecast, because it does not appear that anything said today or last week will improve congestion at all. Can the Minister confirm that today's announcement proves that the Government are willing to sacrifice the efficient and effective road network upon which business and industry depend in order to please Swampy and his friends?

Dr. Reid: The whole thrust of what I said today is that we have to tackle congestion, but the previous approach of using one exclusive instrument—building more roads—has patently failed. We have to achieve our objective through a breadth of measures and by taking an holistic and integrated approach to all forms of transport.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Can the Minister confirm that proposals for a western orbital motorway drawn up by the previous Government are now totally dead and will not form part of the west midlands area study? It does not take a genius to recognise that in a hugely densely populated and industrial area such as Birmingham and the black country, building new roads is not the answer. There is no space for priority bus lanes, so an effective network of light and heavy rail is absolutely essential. I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post in the hope that his departmental officials will tell him that although light rail does not provide value for money compared with buses, it is the only possible solution for 3.5 million people in the west midlands.

Dr. Reid: There are a lot of questions there. We are building the Birmingham northern relief road. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my officials, who have no doubt heard them already. I shall write to him on the other detailed points.

Sir David Madel: I strongly support what the Minister has said about new

roads, which will promote economic growth and sustain industry and employment. With that in mind, will he end the delay over Dunstable's A5 north-south bypass; and could we proceed with new, urgently needed roads in south Bedfordshire to sustain industry and employment?

Dr. Reid: The study about which I have written to the hon. Gentleman will also consider the A5 at Dunstable.

Mr. Derek Foster: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and I agree with the thrust of his statement. I also welcome what he has said about the A66 and the decisions that have been made since the Government came to power. Does he accept that a new deal for the A66 would require dualling from Scotch Corner to Penrith? There has been an all-party campaign on that for the past decade and a half, with the full support of the CBI.

Dr. Reid: We recognise that there is a serious problem and we shall carry out a safety study of the A66. It will be for the regional planning conference to consider its priority for investment.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: May I add my congratulations to the Minister on his promotion? Given that there are no schemes approved or even targeted for my constituency, will he confirm that shire counties such as Surrey will have a proper increase in the budget transferred under the standard spending assessment in the way that he has described? Will he be prepared to meet delegations from areas such as Surrey, where long delayed bypass schemes have now been put further into the future? If the Chancellor cuts the budget further after three years so that even some of the seven-year schemes miss their target, will he apologise to the House and the country?

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though the previous Government had a 10-year agreement, or even a three-year agreement. They had a one-year agreement. We have an agreement for at least three years of stability—and up to seven years with investment. The previous Government never remotely approached that.
The news about the A3 Hindhead improvement will be disappointing for the hon. Gentleman, but the project could not be started in sufficient time for us to include it in the target list. Under the old method, it would have been on a list, like every other project, but that would have been a list of paper roads leading nowhere. We would rather put up practical proposals that are feasible and funded.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the question of providing jobs and employment, has my right hon. Friend looked at the recommendations of the coalfields task force, set up by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister? The recommendations involve road programmes that will lead to the prospect of many jobs—15,000 in north Derbyshire. Will those projects be given priority?

Dr. Reid: I have announced a number of improvements in the coalfield areas. We are studying that issue further. A report is coming in October.
My hon. Friend properly points out that we have to consider economic development, jobs and regeneration. We are having a balanced review. For many decades,


Governments took only one view, irrespective of the environmental consequences. It would be wrong to swing the other way and say that every decision had to be based on environmental consequences, irrespective of the effects on jobs and regeneration. Throughout the Department, led by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we are trying to promote a balanced view, an integrated transport system, interdepartmental work and an holistic solution to the problems—because the old way did not work.

Mr. John Bercow: Although the inclusion of the A41 Aston Clinton bypass in the targeted programme of improvements is welcome—I genuinely thank the Minister for that—does he recognise that my constituents will be gravely disappointed that the previous construction date of 2002 has been scrapped? I remind him in no spirit of political partisanship—my Government did not construct the bypass either—that my constituents have waited 61 years. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in traffic flows over the past five years and there are now 30,000 vehicle movements each day through the village. In the light of the diet of accident, injury and death that my constituents have had to swallow, will the Minister bear in mind their pressing claim for the earliest possible construction date for the bypass?

Dr. Reid: I am very glad that we have been able to proceed with the bypass at Aston Clinton. From memory, it should take about 70 per cent. of traffic out of that village. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of proceeding early. In the same non-partisan spirit with which he made his remarks, I should point out that, of the 61 years that we have been waiting for the bypass, we have had Tory Governments for 50.

Mr. Nigel Beard: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, and I welcome today's statement. Does he agree that high priority should go to schemes under which an unimproved stretch of road prevents full realisation of the true value of earlier road investment? There is an example of that in my constituency on the A106, which is the south Thames development road that runs between Greenwich and the M25. It is the main access to the Thames gateway, which presents an important economic opportunity for south-east London and north Kent. Traffic on the road has increased by 50 per cent. in the past five years. Thames road, Crayford, which is a short stretch of road, is the only part of the main artery that has not been dualled. It is creating a bottleneck and substantial difficulty in the area. Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to look again at proposals for widening it?

Dr. Reid: May I, at this stage, respond just to my hon. Friend's general point? Perhaps we could correspond on the specifics. I very much agree with him, which is why we place such stress on maintenance of roads and better use of the existing network. Such priorities must rank alongside consideration of building new roads.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister has announced plans to build on eight sites of special scientific interest, yet it was a Labour commitment not to build on any. Can he explain that?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I can explain. We did not say that we would not build on any SSSIs; we said that we would be reluctant to build on them. The fact that we have reduced their number in this context from 49 to eight must, even to the most churlish Conservative, be an indication that we have carried out what we said we would.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister will be aware that the House has twice passed road traffic reduction measures and has signed up to the Kyoto summit targets on reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Is he prepared to undertake a study of expected traffic growth in the light of today's statement and its long-term pollutive effect?

Dr. Reid: Such matters of course rank in importance. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister not only attended the Kyoto summit but played a major part in it. These matters are already under consideration, and a document on sustainable development will be published in the autumn.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I have stood up many times in the hope of catching your eye, Madam Speaker; it was certainly wonderful exercise. Does the Minister realise that, as a consequence of his decision to widen the M25 between junctions 12 and 15, the champagne will be flowing in the BAA boardroom this lunchtime? Is he serious about reducing congestion and the number of cars on that stretch of motorway? Has any consideration been given to designating a lane of the existing motorway for buses, other public transport and laden cars?

Dr. Reid: I think that the people who will be celebrating are those who now have to deal with the rat-running alongside the M25 that makes their lives a misery. That is one of the factors that we had to take into consideration in reaching the decision. As for the hon. Lady's more general points, the answer is yes. I will clarify further details for her if she wishes to communicate with me.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Many of my constituents will be extremely pleased with his comments about the Bingley relief road, and they will also wish to join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on his well-organised and forceful campaign. In the long term, although the relief road is welcome and I am pleased about it, it cannot be a solution in itself. The Aire valley is narrow, and we need to consider improving bus services and rail services on the Aire valley railway. We could even consider using the Leeds-Liverpool canal.
The statement tells us that the A650 Hard Ings road improvement will be replaced by a scaled-down solution. That is a narrow stretch of road between two lots of dual carriageway, and it forms a dreadful bottleneck right in the middle of my constituency. How scaled down will the solution be?

Dr. Reid: I can write to my hon. Friend about her last question. As for her second point, she will know that transport provision other than the roadways is already being considered. I have already paid tribute to the


campaign for the Bingley relief road, but, at the end of the day, like all the other schemes, the plan met the new criteria that we have outlined; that is why it is there.

Mr. Tom Brake: In what respect will the widening of the M25 be good for the environment; and in what respect is it integrated?

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will understand that those factors need to be balanced, and none of them can be taken in isolation. Even the strongest opponent of motorway building and widening would accept that there is a particular problem with that stretch of road. If he is asking me about the pollution effects, he will know about those as well as I do. Thousands of cars parked together belching smoke into the air present what is probably the most obvious example.

Mr. David Drew: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend, and welcome in particular what he said about the help with combating noise pollution. I pay tribute to the previous Minister responsible for roads, Baroness Hayman, who was interested in and concerned about that matter. I urge my right hon. Friend to deal with the problem facing my constituents who live at Upton St. Leonards alongside the M5. Their houses are far too close to the motorway, and have no protection against the noise. I am sure that that situation is replicated throughout the length and breadth of this country.

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will have noted that we are emphasising for the first time a commitment not only to examine noise pollution but to do something about it.

Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome the Minister's statement that he plans to ring-fence investment funds for safety measures and target them on small-scale improvements. Will he review the criteria now used to prioritise safety improvement schemes, because to some of us they seem both byzantine and counter-intuitive? When he has done that, and based those criteria on common sense, will he take another look at the case for safety barriers on the Kingston A3 bypass?

Dr. Reid: I think that it would test the patience of the House if I spontaneously announced yet another review of the criteria used to review safety elements, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the scheme to spend up to £50 million on safety measures, with a maximum, I think, of £5 million for any one scheme over a number of years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me I shall take his comments into consideration, but I would not like to promise another review ad hoc.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and welcome his roads statement today. I welcome especially his decision to withdraw from the roads programme the widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 14 where it passes through my constituency. I am sure that the Minister realises that that is one of the few places along its route where the M1 passes very close to dwellings. As a result of the uncertainty generated by the previous Government,

a deal of blight has been created and many residents are very upset. The correct decision has been made today; but will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic and urgent consideration to dealing with that blight in the near future?

Dr. Reid: Yes. My hon. Friend makes the point and gives the reasons for our decision as well as, if not better than, I could.

Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his impressive performance at the Dispatch Box on a tricky subject so soon after his appointment. While the widening of the M6 motorway through Staffordshire is on hold pending studies, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether three things will happen? First, will the trunk roads that are possible alternative routes be maintained and improved? Secondly, will the west coast main line be upgraded to attract more passengers and freight? Thirdly, I know that my right hon. Friend's Department has studied the genuine bottleneck on the M6 between junctions 10 and 6. Will there be action as a result of that study?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend threw three questions at me. I think that the answers are: yes, yes and yes. There will be action when we have completed the study.

Mr. Michael Wills: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, his performance today and his statement. I welcome particularly the Government's decision to launch a study of traffic problems in Blunsdon, in my constituency. A bypass scheme there was cancelled by the previous Government, much to the horror of my constituents. The results of that cancellation have been growing traffic congestion in the area, a choke point on the strategic trunk road between the M4 and M5, the bisection of a village and pollution.
We welcome the fact that the scheme is no longer dead and buried. However, I seek my right hon. Friend's assurances on two points. First, will there be an early start to the study? Secondly, will the bypass option enable Swindon borough council and the Highways Agency to retain the land that they own and which is needed for the bypass? If they have to sell that land, we would be denied the possibility of a bypass for at least 25 years.

Dr. Reid: On the first point, I assure my hon. Friend that we will begin as soon as possible. On his second point, I do not think that he would expect me to give a firm assurance on what appears to be a very complicated land ownership and planning development matter that also involves my portfolio. I am afraid that it will be another few days before I have mastered that brief.

Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have heard reports this morning about the closure of a brand new Siemens micro-chip factory on Tyneside, with the probable loss of up to 1,000 jobs. That is the first big strike at British manufacturing industry as a consequence of the collapse of prices and markets in the far east. The shock and anger on Tyneside will be very great—indeed, more than I can express properly now. I appreciate the present circumstances of both the House and the Government, but


have you, Madam Speaker, been informed that the Government intend to make a statement about the matter today?

Mr. Derek Foster: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to support the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for a statement by a Minister. This could be the worst piece of news for the north-east of the past decade or so, and it demands an urgent ministerial statement.

Madam Speaker: I must inform the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that I have not been advised that a Minister is seeking to make a statement about that matter.

Mr. Prescott: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have only just heard the news, which, if it is correct, would be a terrible development. I visited the Siemens plant quite recently and it is a wonderful facility. I am sure that the people in that region will be very concerned. I shall take it upon myself to communicate with the Departments involved, including the Department of Trade and Industry and my own, to see what we can do in the circumstances.

Madam Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act 1998
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Government of Wales Act 1998
National Minimum Wage Act 1998
Lloyds TSB Act 1998.

Orders of the Day — NON-SITTING FRIDAYS

Ordered,
That the Order of 19th May 1997 relating to non-sitting Fridays be amended by adding 'and Friday 23rd October.'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Orders of the Day — ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SERVICE CANDIDATES

Resolved,
That the Resolution of the House of 18th February 1963, relating to the appointment by the Home Secretary of an Advisory Committee to examine every application for release from the armed forces for the purpose of contesting a parliamentary election, and to report to the appropriate Service Minister, in each case, whether or not it is satisfied that it is a bona fide application, be rescinded.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Orders of the Day — TREASURY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Malcolm Bruce be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Dr. Vincent Cable be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam.]

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Weapons (India and Pakistan)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Harry Cohen: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate—the last business of the House before the summer recess. I thank the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) for delaying his holidays to respond to the debate.
Both India and Pakistan have rich histories and proud and diverse cultures. I have taken an interest in that part of the world for many years, and I am a member of the all-party groups on both India and Pakistan. I have a constituency interest also, as many who came to this country from India and Pakistan have settled in Leyton and Wanstead, where they have contributed enormously to the local community. Along with my wife, I have visited both countries and regard them and their people with considerable affection.
India and Pakistan are relatively young states, having spent generations freeing themselves from colonial rule. The independence struggle took place at a time when Britain had a very different view of its place in the world. One of my predecessors as the hon. Member for Leyton, Reg Sorenson—later Lord Sorenson—was a great advocate in this place of Indian independence.
The subsequent division between Pakistan and India at the time of independence in 1947—in which Lord Mountbatten, on behalf of the UK Government, played an important role—left many dead and destitute, and there is a continuing legacy of resentment between the two countries. That resentment has, on three occasions in the past, spilled into war. Any student of the area knows that it could easily lead to another.
Having gained independence, India and Pakistan were treated poorly by the rest of the world, being constantly patronised and belittled. They were regularly used as pawns in the cold war. That was no way to treat proud cultures.
As well as having a close interest in south Asia, I also oppose nuclear weapons around the world. I have repeatedly spoken in the House for nuclear disarmament and arms control, and I am currently the convenor of Parliamentary Labour CND. Nuclear weapons are immoral and wasteful of precious resources.
Hiroshima day is next Thursday, 6 August. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where nuclear weapons were used, was on a truly horrendous scale. Current nuclear weapons are multiple Hiroshimas. We should be working for a world free from nuclear weapons. That places an obligation on nuclear weapons states to reduce and eliminate their arsenals. By logic, that must mean that no new country should become a nuclear weapons state.
It made me immensely sad, therefore, when India carried out its nuclear tests in May. The tests were rightly and roundly condemned by the world and led to the imposition of a variety of sanctions by a number of states such as Japan and the United States, where there is law to make such action automatic when there is nuclear weapons proliferation.
The first test on 11 May took most of us by surprise, although hindsight shows that there were several warning signs, including some nationalistic comments by Bharatiya Janata party politicians, who form the new Government in India. The Indian Government stated that they had carried out three simultaneous test explosions, although there may in fact have been only one explosion, and a judicious politician's use of words to imply that three weapons had been tested.
It is difficult to carry out tests simultaneously, as the slightest mistiming in triggering any of the devices can mean that one or more could be damaged by the explosion of another, and not detonate or, worse still, scatter its contents over a wide area. Because of the technical difficulties, it has never been done by the United Kingdom, and the United States has tried it very rarely.
The Indians carried out two more tests two days later. Sadly and alarmingly, the Indian Government's actions were met with acclaim by the population: opinion poll after opinion poll showed that, in the initial few weeks, there was popular support for the tests, although that has since declined. At the time, I felt that that was misguided and misdirected nationalism—I still think so—and that such joy would be more than matched by bitterness and despair if the weapons were used. That may be reflected in the future in millions of individual personal histories, because the money wasted on these useless weapons could have been used to save lives or vastly improve the quality of life of whole communities.
The world's response was not all that it could have been. Sanctions were not implemented quickly or tightly enough, and many states delayed their decision on how to respond. Several of the major powers gave the impression that they might be prepared to soften their attitude and weakly accept the new status quo as inevitable. Pakistan was put in an unenviable position and it was perhaps inevitable that it would carry out tests of its own. Those happened on 28 and 30 May. Again, there is a doubt about precisely how many tests were carried out.
The tests are symptomatic of the regional security situation, which has been characterised by provocation and retaliation. Disputes, most notably over Kashmir, have brought the two states into conflict. As a consequence, their military bills represent a sky-high proportion of their national resources.
The Indians, especially, like to argue that it is not for outsiders to preach about what should be done about conflicts such as Kashmir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that the conflict should be resolved bilaterally, but has offered assistance that may be acceptable to India and Pakistan to help to achieve a settlement.
It is perhaps worth noting at this point the valuable help given by outsiders in our own seemingly intractable problems in Northern Ireland. Senator Mitchell of the United States was the most prominent, but not the only, outsider to be involved in efforts to bring peace, and his contribution is rightly applauded. India and Pakistan should not have a closed mind to outside assistance in resolving the problem of Kashmir.
The resolution of the tensions between India and Pakistan is primarily a matter for the states themselves, but the introduction of an overt nuclear weapons capability means that the rest of the world will be affected if anything goes wrong, so the rest of the world has a


direct stake in what happens in the region. If India and Pakistan want to tell us that we should not interfere in their internal affairs, they should be left in no doubt that their holding of nuclear weapons is likely to lead to an opposite world reaction.
I am not saying that nuclear war in south Asia is an early likelihood. I am sure that the leaders of the two countries are too sensible to start a nuclear war deliberately, but the misapplied nationalism, of which there have been plenty of examples, could lead to a frenzy of hatred in which nuclear weapons just might be used. In a period of tension, there is always the danger of a misjudgment or an accident. History is littered with wars that everyone was confident would never happen.
The effects of nuclear war know no boundaries. A single nuclear weapon detonated anywhere in south Asia would have political and environmental effects a long way away. Some sheep in Wales are still controlled because of the effects of the Chernobyl accident 12 years ago. The work done on nuclear winter during the cold war proved that it was possible to cause major changes in the world's climate with only a small number of nuclear weapons.
Possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a global issue. The greatest threat to the 21st century would be proliferation of nuclear weapons until they were in the hands of many states, some of them unstable, or even in the hands of terrorists. Non-proliferation must be taken seriously in the other nuclear weapons states as well as in India and Pakistan. It is immoral for India and Pakistan to say that they will go non-nuclear when others do. They are making the great leap in proliferation. They are contributing to an immensely dangerous world in the next century. If proliferation is unchecked, they will not be unscathed.
Developments in south Asia put five other Governments around the world in a difficult position. Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China possess nuclear weapons, and their criticism of India and Pakistan is serious weakened by that. If the five want to stop proliferation to make sure that the world is safer, they must move unequivocally towards elimination of their own nuclear weapons. The Government have made some positive steps by reducing the number of operational warheads. Cuts announced in the strategic defence review were welcome. They offer an opportunity for dialogue with India and Pakistan, but we must pursue the theme of nuclear weapons reduction and elimination, not parity.
Sir David Gore-Booth, our high commissioner in India, has today decided to leave that post for a career in business. I fervently hope that our new high commissioner will play an active diplomatic and political role in pressing for the stop of nuclear weapons. There must be no weakening of that position. Will the Minister comment on how he expects the new high commissioner to argue against India's nuclear weapons policy?
The Minister appeared last week before the Select Committee on Defence. He accepted that Britain was poorly placed to complain because of our possession of nuclear weapons. He said that the key difference between the United Kingdom and India or Pakistan was that
we inherit the situation that we are in rather than being in the process of creating it.
That distinction is useful, but it does not stop the United Kingdom being serious about stopping worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must move ahead on our manifesto commitment to international negotiations on nuclear arms reduction.
As well as possessing nuclear weapons, the five states that I mentioned have permanent seats on the Security Council of the United Nations. It seems that one follows the other, but that should not automatically be so. In recent years, India has felt that a country of its size should have a permanent seat. I have always felt that the Security Council's composition, which is based on the winners of the second world war, is biased towards the west. It is archaic to have two western European seats. If the council had been updated, India, because of its size, population, role in the world and future significance, would have been a prime candidate for a permanent seat. The nuclear tests have changed that. India's aspiration for a permanent seat is forlorn for the foreseeable future. I could not support such a move. Other states that wanted such important influence at the UN might also develop nuclear weapons as their route to the Security Council.
Pakistan and India have proclaimed themselves nuclear weapon states—they are clearly states that possess nuclear weapons—but that is a specific term, defined in the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty to mean a state that tested a nuclear device before 1 January 1967; that date has long gone. There must be no redefinition of the term to accommodate India and Pakistan, as that would fatally weaken the treaty, making it near worthless in the face of any new nuclear testing state. There must be no alteration to the treaty.
As well as the immediate tension between India and Pakistan, wider issues are involved with China to the north and Iran to the west. India has had long-standing border disputes with China, the worst of which led to an invasion by China in the early 1960s. The poor performance of the Indian army at the time may well have been a deciding factor in the start of the drive for nuclear weapons development. India's relations with China have been improving, not least with the introduction of a series of confidence-building measures in the border areas in the past few years. Overt nationalism by India risks fresh disputes on a larger and much more dangerous scale.
China's closeness to Pakistan, including allegations of nuclear assistance, is clearly of concern to India. Pakistan may be encouraged in its relations with China by its fear of India's superiority in conventional arms. Those three countries need to get together and adopt a joint security pact. It is also time for them to consider a joint economic pact. It is time for direct action to avoid the use of the rivalries that flow from misguided nationalism in all those three important states.
Iran shares a border with Pakistan, whose test site was only about 80 miles away. While it is early days, how the tests will influence the Iranian Government remains an issue. Iran is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but it has been alleged—mainly by the Americans—that it has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons. It is impossible to tell how true the allegations are, but if any part of the Iranian Government has nuclear pretensions, its hand can only have been strengthened by the recent events. If Iran attempted to get nuclear weapons, what would be the impact on Israel? Clearly, nuclear problems cannot be contained, and they move between regions.
One other problem that has not been mentioned but could affect the rest of the world is that the economy of Pakistan is weak. There is a danger that the Government could collapse and we could be facing a situation similar to the one that occurred at the end of the cold war with


the collapse of the Soviet Union—the potential for loose nukes. In such circumstances, nuclear weapons and their components may slip from Government control and end up on the black market. That may also be true of India as, last week, three people were arrested and 6 kg of uranium seized in Madras. The quality or grade of the uranium is not clear, but the incident should be taken as a warning of dangers to come.
The possession of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan increases the risk of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Both countries have extensive problems with poverty and corruption. Whenever aid projects in Pakistan and India are organised through non-governmental organisations, our Government should not hesitate to remind those countries that, while we favour money being spent to alleviate hardship and poverty, we will not allow any hidden subsidy so that the Governments of India and Pakistan can divert money to their nuclear weapons programmes.
As a vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives, I am concerned that India has more than 25 per cent. of the childbirth-related deaths in the world. I emphasise that I do not want any direct poverty alleviation work halted, but every diplomatic opportunity should be taken to remind the Indian and Pakistani Governments of their duties to their people. We should finance only non-governmental organisation projects and end all Government-to-Government aid such as military and police training.
What can be done? We must make concerted efforts to show that the world will not tolerate nuclear proliferation. We cannot let the 21st century turn into a century of proliferation. There are some encouraging signs of contact between the two states. Two days ago, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met privately during a regional summit meeting in Sri Lanka. By all accounts, it was a barely lukewarm meeting, but at least both promised that senior diplomats from each side would meet in the near future to arrange further dialogue. That should be developed more fully.
Other forms of contact, such as trade, must be encouraged. The Foreign Secretary told the House:
At present, India and Pakistan trade only I per cent. of their gross domestic products with each other. In the modem world, where prosperity is based primarily on trade, external investment and the exchange of technology, that kind of barrier to trade makes no sense for the prosperity and development of those two countries."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 524.]
Dialogue and trade must be encouraged between them, and between China and India.
It is clear that the pressure must be kept up. Last week, the Indian Defence Minister told his Parliament that there was no question of his country "buckling" under external pressure to review its nuclear policy. They must be under no illusions; there will be serious consequences. If there were no pressure or consequences, the Indian and Pakistani Governments would not buckle, but would continue with their dangerous nuclear strategies. Sanctions must be kept tight.
Worryingly, the United States is relaxing some of its sanctions on trade in grain after protests by American farmers. Talk in Congress is of loosening the law imposing automatic sanctions on proliferating states. That

would be a step towards letting the nuclear proliferation genie out of the bottle. Any replacement policy must be equally punitive or the wrong signals will be given to India, Pakistan and any future potential nuclear weapon state.
We must ensure that no form of aid can be used to subsidise nuclear weapons programmes. Soon after sanctions were introduced, the Prime Minister of Pakistan called for Pakistanis around the world to send money to his country. We should examine whether currency restrictions or other measures could be introduced to ensure that the effects of sanctions are not reduced through such action. His appeal should be countered and discouraged. It is, after all, in their terms, an interference in our countries. If the money is not for direct support of family or alleviation of poverty, it should be discouraged.
Further sanctions could be implemented. Military training and co-operation with the two countries should be suspended by all states. All foreign involvement with the military in India and Pakistan should be prohibited. There should be an international regime to restrict foreign investment so that it does not allow any diversion of resources for military purposes. Perhaps postgraduate nuclear physics students from India and Pakistan in this country and others should have their studies suspended until the situation is resolved. Perhaps we should refuse to give visas to scientists, engineers and technicians known to have worked on the nuclear weapons programmes. I also favour support in various forms for the people in both countries who believe in, and will campaign for, a non-nuclear future.
As well as the sanctions for change, which are admittedly negative but necessary, a positive approach is needed. Direct aid to alleviate poverty via NGOs, not the Governments, should continue, but it should also be pointed out how much more both Governments could do if they did not waste their resources on weapons. A non-nuclear future and a settlement of the disputes would be rewarded with greater security and greater prosperity for both countries. I hope that the United Kingdom Government, with the rest of the world, will be able to present a clear picture of the costs to India and Pakistan of keeping nuclear weapons, and the enormous benefits of not having them.
India and Pakistan have made the world a much less safe place. Natural allies of the two countries, such as I, have been put in a difficult position. Many people with a natural inclination to support India and Pakistan are unable to support the spread of nuclear weapons. The world is more secure with fewer nuclear weapons, not more; it is more secure still with none at all. Pakistan and India would be more secure without nuclear weapons.
Pakistan missed a big economic opportunity when it responded to India with its own nuclear tests. That opportunity should remain available, accompanying a decision to abandon nuclear weapons.
It is immensely sad that the first of those tests was carried out by India, the country of Mohandas Gandhi, the Mahatma, and a country with so much potential for promoting good in the world, in accordance with Gandhian principles. Nuclear weapons are a betrayal of the Gandhi tradition of non-violence.
I hope that there will be a sensible rethink in both countries and that a non-nuclear approach to resolving disagreements will be re-established and reaffirmed in the interests of nuclear non-proliferation, a safer south Asia and a safer world in the 21st century.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate on the last day of the Session. It is incredibly important, but it poses a huge dilemma for the world and, in particular, for the British Government.
The hon. Gentleman has ably described the contrasts in India and Pakistan. In many ways, they are very industrialised and have a high standard of technology in some sectors, yet, in most of India and Pakistan, people do not have access to clean water. In India and Pakistan, there is a brilliant and ancient culture and superb universities, yet a huge proportion of the people in both countries are illiterate and have no access to education.
Medical technology is of the highest quality in both India and Pakistan in their medical schools and teaching hospitals. Indeed, this country has benefited tremendously over the years from Indian doctors and surgeons working in this country, yet, as the hon. Gentleman has described, in India, the figures on infant mortality and the perinatal mortality of mothers are appalling. Both countries are areas of huge contrasts that are to be deplored.
Nearly half of the world's poorest people live in India. India receives the largest proportion of overseas aid that we give. As hon. Members will know, this year's Department for International Development White Paper said that we were concentrating on alleviating poverty among the poorest people of the world, not the poorest countries. That is what presents us with this dilemma: how can we put pressure on India and Pakistan without endangering the aid that we give to the poorest people in the world?
It all boils down to whether there is peace in the area. All the time the hon. Gentleman was speaking, something that we used to sing at school was going through my head; I think that it is from Judas Maccabeus by Handel:
Oh lovely peace with plenty crowned".
The only solution to poverty is peace. I urge the Government to do everything that they can to stabilise the area and to encourage India and Pakistan to reach a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate and on the way that he introduced it. I shall be brief so that the Minister has time to reply. I declare an interest as I hold a lifetime membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which I joined at the age of 16 and, I am proud to say, of which I am still a member. Indeed, I am a member of its national council. I passionately believe that the world would be a better and safer place if there were no nuclear weapons, and that we should set an example by not having any ourselves.
Next Thursday, 6 August, will be Hiroshima day; three days later it will be Nagasaki day. They are the only times that atomic bombs have been used in war—in

anger—against people. People are still dying from cancers caused by the fallout from very small explosive powers compared with those that are available to this country, the United States, France, China, Russia and, now, India and Pakistan. The work of the peace movements around the world has at least focused attention on the possibility of getting rid of nuclear weapons.
In all the recent discussion and debate on the Pakistan and Indian nuclear tests, which I deplore, many people in Pakistan and India have felt that it is a bit rich to get lectures from Europe, the United States, Russia and China on why they should not be undertaking nuclear testing, when, for example, this country has just rapidly expanded our nuclear capability with the introduction of the Trident nuclear missile system. The 200 warheads have far more destructive power than was previously available under the Polaris system. Although I support what the Government have done in trying to persuade both India and Pakistan of the error of their ways, we would make far better progress if we were seen to be getting rid of our nuclear weapons.
The background to India and Pakistan's promotion of a nuclear capability and the vast arms race is, in part, a hangover from the cold war. The Soviet Union supported and heavily armed India, while the United States supported Pakistan; now, China is helping to develop nuclear missiles in Pakistan, while Russia—and many other countries—continues to try to sell nuclear material and technology to both countries. The bloodthirsty arms trade around the world is more interested in the profits that can be made from selling arms to both those countries than in dealing with the desperate and terrible poverty of people in India and Pakistan.
The running sore of the inability of the United Nations, since 1948, to deal with the issue of Kashmir provides the pretext in which the military establishments of both countries can put enormous pressure on their own Governments, who can then use the populist argument of the need to be fully armed in order to protect, invade, liberate—or whatever other word one cares to use—in order to resolve the issue of Kashmir. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did his best to promote talks on the issue of Kashmir. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some further news on that. Promoting a greater UN involvement in Kashmir, or any other form of mediation, must be the way forward.
Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead said about the fact that both Prime Ministers met at the SARC summit in Colombo a few days ago—it is good news that at least they met—unfortunately, no agreement was reached at the end of that meeting and both sides are still committed to building a nuclear capability. India has tested five nuclear devices while Pakistan has tested six. India appears to have the capability to build a modern day thermonuclear device, while Pakistan appears to be developing a uranium-based atomic bomb. The capability is enormous. India appears to have stocks of highly enriched uranium and about 300 to 400 kg of reactor grade plutonium. Official sources estimate that by the year 2000, India's stockpile of weapons grade plutonium could rise to 450 kg. Pakistan has slightly less such material, but it has sufficient to manufacture a significant number of atomic bombs. Perhaps more importantly, Pakistan now has a missile system capable of delivering those bombs to another country, making the situation more dangerous.
West Germany, France, Britain, Canada, China, Belgium, Libya, Holland and Switzerland have all supplied various parts of nuclear technology to Pakistan. The United States, France, Britain, West Germany, Canada, Russia and China have all supplied significant amounts of high-technology material to India, so that it would be able to develop its nuclear capability.
We have to look for a way forward. The gut reaction was that sanctions should be applied against India and Pakistan for undertaking nuclear tests. I should welcome anything that will stop further tests, and promote the peace process in both countries and the eventual removal of all those nuclear weapons. However, as India and Pakistan have such desperate poverty, high rates of infant mortality and communicable diseases, low levels of life expectancy and a lack of basic necessities—such as clean drinking water, never mind basic food and education—I am concerned that many of the proposed sanctions would not hurt the military, the hierarchy or those who are promoting the arms race between the two countries, but would punish the very poorest people, in some of the poorest states on earth. I am therefore concerned that nothing would be gained by imposing sanctions.
Sanctions would probably enhance the popularity of the Bharatiya Janata party, which promoted demonstrations in support of nuclear tests. We should therefore be extremely cautious about using a sanctions process that would hurt the poorest people in India.
I hope that we will hear in the reply to the debate what the British Government have been doing to try to deal with the Kashmir issue, which is the biggest running sore between India and Pakistan, and to promote universal adherence to both the nuclear test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. Adherence is the kernel of the issue.
Above all, we have to work towards creating a world in which the United Nations' authority is enhanced, and its ability to sort out countries' basic disputes and to promote a long-term disarmament process is increased. Nothing could be more obscene than a well-stocked and well-equipped military in a country filled with desperate poverty and people who are unable to gain a basic subsistence. Another obscenity is populist politicians saying, "We have to defend ourselves against the enemy across the border", thereby enhancing still further the military's role at the expense of the very poorest people in those countries.
We live a world that is deeply divided between north and south. Unless Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States do far more to reduce their own nuclear capability—I should prefer that we got rid of it in its entirety—lectures from us to poor countries about why they should not have nuclear weapons will fall on deaf ears. The likelihood of other states around the world openly developing a nuclear weapons capability will be enhanced if they do not know where nuclear weapons are currently targeted or at whom missiles are currently aimed.
As we come towards the end of the 20th century—in which so many millions have died in so many wars, many of which were entirely and utterly useless; and in which the arms trade is burgeoning as never before—perhaps we

should stop for a moment and do our very best to disarm ourselves as a way of encouraging a disarmament process around the world. The alternative is unthinkable. The alternative is some mad colonel or general pressing the button that will start the thermonuclear war that we all grew up dreading during the dark days of the cold war.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I had no intention of joining in this debate, but I was prompted to rise to my feet by the common sense that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen).
I recall that on the day Pakistan exploded its nuclear devices, I was speaking about Kashmir at a community centre in Brierfield in my constituency. I walked through the swing doors to find a party atmosphere, almost a celebration. People whose views I respect—members of the Asian community whom I know well—told me that it was a triumph that Pakistan had exploded those devices. I found that dispiriting and depressing, and said so in my speech. I said that it was madness to take that route, but I was told that nuclear weapons would help stability in the region. That is absolute nonsense. If nuclear weapons increase stability, why do we not give them to Turkey and Greece, to Iran and Iraq? Let us spray them around the entire middle east and then see long we survive on planet earth.
We need India and Pakistan to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the test ban treaty, and we in Britain need to wind down the nuclear arms race. We read in the newspapers today that the old Polaris fleet targeted 58 cities in the old Soviet Union, but no one knows what the Trident missiles are targeting—obviously, we are not going to hear that from the Minister.
The payload carried by Trident is being reduced. It was announced as part of the comprehensive spending review that we would save £100 million. I wrote to the Minister of State about that to say what a missed opportunity it was. Instead of making the announcement as part of the comprehensive spending review, why did we not say that we were never going to use our nuclear weapons, that they cost us an arm and a leg and that we would disarm progressively? That could have been our contribution, but we did not do it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, being the optimist that he is, said—I am paraphrasing—that he saw no prospect of an early nuclear conflict in south Asia. I do not know about that. The experts who pronounce on these matters tell us that it is possible for one or other of the countries to win a first-strike nuclear war. There are no hardened concrete silos containing missiles 50 ft underground there. Neither India nor Pakistan has the equivalent of the Trident fleet—they do not have their deadly nuclear weapons 300 ft under the Indian ocean. The experts say that there is a trip wire and that the mad people in India and Pakistan who think that it is conceivable that one can win a nuclear war might press the button. Is not that impossible? Are not the politicians and army leaders there too rational? Judged by the standards in the United Kingdom, are they not too rational?
I remember Pakistan's Foreign Minister appearing on "Newsnight" after India had detonated the nuclear devices. He made an incredible speech that was almost a


come-on to India. He said that Pakistan's population of 120 million was dispersed in villages across a very wide area and could absorb a nuclear strike from India. I repeat that it was the Foreign Minister of Pakistan who was speaking in such a juvenile, infantile way. I have many constituents of Kashmiri or Pakistani origin and I find it appalling that people are prepared to embrace those sentiments.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) described Kashmir as a festering sore. Since 1947, there have been three wars between India and Pakistan, but we still have not got to grips with the problem of Kashmir. Pakistan wants to internationalise the issue and bring in other countries to help broker an agreement, while India resolutely maintains that it is an internal matter, that Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian state and it will not brook any interference from outside.
I stand here in the House of Commons and I wish that I had an answer, but I do not. The problem has to be mediated in some way, through the United Nations or, as I say for the umpteenth time, by Britain as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a lead member of the European Union. Although we are a small country, we still have huge influence overseas. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
I should like to see a nuclear-free world. There were five declared nuclear weapon states and there are now seven. God knows how many more could develop nuclear weapons at the drop of a hat—such as Brazil, Argentina and Israel—so the whole world is very unstable. If countries choose to become nuclear weapon states, there must be consequences. We cannot learn to live with the bomb. What I found so dispiriting after the explosions in India and Pakistan is the fact that we have all got used to the idea that there are no longer five but seven nuclear states. People think that it is no big deal, that it is all happening halfway round the globe and does not affect us. People are not as agitated, upset and angry about it as they should be. We are learning to live with it and we should not. We have to say to the people of India and Pakistan that there are consequences.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke about the deep poverty in that part of the world. It is a disgrace that 70 per cent. of the 120 million people in Pakistan are illiterate, yet 50 per cent. of the budget is spent on the military and on servicing debt. That is an absolute disgrace. There are comparable figures for India. I do not carry them about in my head, but the point has been made.
Finally, Britain can have an influence as an honest broker. Our history is tied up with India and Pakistan. People in my constituency say that Britain must act because we were responsible for what happened in Kashmir. My response is that we do have a responsibility, but it happened 50 years ago and the present generation in Britain cannot for ever be held responsible for decisions that were taken by politicians half a century ago. It requires good will on all sides and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond positively to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead in his excellent speech.

Mr. John McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for raising today's Adjournment debate. Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that the issue of consequences arose not with regard to the recent proliferation, but in respect of the seventh nuclear state, the state of Israel. We are in our current situation because we imposed no consequences on Israel for introducing nuclear weapons.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for two reasons. First, there are voices that have not been heard in the debate. He referred to the support of people in Pakistan and India for the development of nuclear devices by their countries. We have seen that in the media, but the voices that challenged that development went unheard, including those of many of our constituents, particularly those from Punjab. Many of those born in Punjab, deriving from there or with families still there, believe that the development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan could result in Punjab becoming a nuclear battle ground. They urge us to impress on India and Pakistan that not only should the nuclear devices be removed, but that Punjab should be fully demilitarised. Only in that way can they secure the future of their families, the region and, in some instances, their human rights. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that the British Government impress on the Indian and Pakistani Governments that the demand comes from the British Punjabis, who have a concern for their original homeland and for their families.
Secondly, I have listened to Defence Ministers informing the British people that unilaterally abandoning the use of landmines—we all whole-heartedly support the legislation that was given Royal Assent today—would give the British Government a moral authority to impress on other states that the use of landmines was abhorrent and should be denied to those states. The British Government should assume the same moral authority on the issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead has been campaigning for so long—the unilateral nuclear disarmament of this country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, we are accused by the Indian and Pakistani Governments, and by many of our constituents who derive from those areas, of cant and hypocrisy when we call on those Governments not to develop nuclear weapons while we are stockpiling and upgrading them. I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and for the development of new systems of negotiation and representation at the United Nations so that we can start the debate. Now that the British nose has been rubbed into the issue of nuclear disarmament because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent, we can start the debate on reform at the United Nations and initiate the first steps towards the handing over of nuclear weapons to a central authority and eventually to the scrapping of all such weapons.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for introducing the debate. He has given us an opportunity to voice opinions that have not been heard so far.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on raising such an important matter in the last debate in the House before the summer recess. Hon. Members have referred to next week's anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Like many hon. Members, I have been to that city. Anyone who has seen the peace memorial in the middle of Hiroshima graphically understands the destruction caused by nuclear weapons there and the threat of small-scale and larger-scale nuclear annihilation. None of us can be sanguine about the existence of nuclear weapons. The Government seek the global elimination of nuclear weapons.
In that context, I should point out that India and Pakistan are tied to this country through history, culture, common populations and genuine friendship. Like many other hon. Members, I have constituents whose origins lie in India and Pakistan. The ties are indissoluble; they will be with us not just for years but generations to come. We therefore have an interest in these matters not simply as members of the same planet but as people who are much more intimately tied. Any remarks that we make are in the context not of hostility but our deep and abiding friendship.
The issue is important not just to the security of Pakistan, India and their immediate neighbours but to the future prospects for global non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which concerns us all. International reaction to the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan has been almost uniformly negative. Outside the sub-continent itself, it is hard to find anything other than condemnation. The tests caused deep-seated concerns for two reasons. First, they fly in the face of international efforts on non-proliferation and, secondly, they have undoubtedly heightened tension in south Asia.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House—the Opposition are very ably represented by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—will recall the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 14 May and 1 June, in which he told the House that we in Britain, with our long and close ties and as friends of both countries, were nevertheless appalled at the risks and costs to the peoples of the sub-continent of a nuclear arms race.
Hon. Members have asked what the Government have done since. Since the statements, Foreign Ministers of the Group of Eight countries have met in London on 12 June at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government. They were joined by Foreign Ministers and representatives of China, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, South Africa and the Philippines. All those countries viewed the tests as a major challenge to international security and were as determined as we were to encourage India and Pakistan to reduce regional tension and adopt non-proliferation measures, and to offer practical assistance wherever possible.
As a result of the meeting, it was agreed to set up a task force to take matters forward. Its composition demonstrates that the international consensus against nuclear tests goes beyond the five acknowledged nuclear weapons states. That is an important dimension which

hon. Members should take on board. Apart from G8 countries, task force members include China, Australia, Austria, which currently holds the European Union presidency, and the Philippines, which is the current chair of the Association of South East Asian Nations.
Particular value is added by the membership of states that have renounced the nuclear option. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that Brazil and Argentina have a potential nuclear capability. I must firmly state that the role of Brazil and Argentina is significant because they formally renounced, in a mutually binding treaty, nuclear weapons development, and so ridded the continent of Latin American of nuclear weapons for—we hope—ever. I must add that the role of Ukraine, which has also renounced its nuclear weapons, is welcome and important, too. The three countries have valuable experience to offer in resolving regional security issues through political engagement rather than the nuclear option.
The initial focus of the group is naturally and rightly on non-proliferation, although it is also reviewing the wider security picture in south Asia to reduce tension and build confidence between India and Pakistan. The task force's first meeting produced a clear sense of common purpose among the diverse group of countries.
On arms control, the task force welcomed, as the House will, the moratoriums on testing announced by both India and Pakistan—but those were welcomed only as a first step to signature of the comprehensive test ban treaty by both countries. Clearly, that is what we must seek. Members agreed that it was a priority to press both countries to sign the treaty immediately and without conditions. There can be no question of amending the treaty, as that would serve as a reward for nuclear proliferation. I am pleased to say that there have been more encouraging signs from both countries that that may be one of the more readily achievable goals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked about the role of the British high commissioner. He, together with Britain's general diplomatic efforts and the other members of the task force, will be deployed in moving towards that ambition.
Task force members also agreed to press for a quick start on something important to the British Government—the fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations at the conference on disarmament in Geneva—and to call on India and Pakistan to announce a moratorium on further production of fissile materials in the meantime. Again, we are encouraged by the flexibility and constructive approach that both India and Pakistan are showing, and we hope that that will soon lead to results in Geneva.
High on the task force's agenda was how to avoid the further highly dangerous increase of tension that deployment of nuclear weapons would bring. The group agreed that India and Pakistan should be pressed not to assemble or deploy nuclear weapons. Clear definitions of what is meant by "non-weaponisation" and non-deployment are urgently needed, in the form of binding and verifiable confidence-building and security-building measures.

Mr. Corbyn: That is extremely important. Have either of the two countries accepted any form of international inspection of either the development or the potential loading of weapons on to missiles?

Mr. Lloyd: No; at this moment that is not the case. However, I was about to say that the international


community stands ready to assist. We want to see binding and verifiable confidence-building and security-building measures. Those would give mutual confidence, and also confidence throughout south Asia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about proliferation beyond India and Pakistan. Of course the task force discussed how to prevent further damage to global non-proliferation regimes being caused by exports of nuclear technology and know-how from India or Pakistan.
Both countries have made welcome statements on their respective export policies, but what is needed now is national legislation, incorporating the policy guidelines and control lists of the two major export control regimes—the missile technology control regime and the nuclear suppliers group. The first of those serves to limit missile technology and the second places limitations on the export of nuclear technology, as well as dual-use technology that could assist in nuclear development. The task force agreed to pursue ways of giving India and Pakistan practical help and advice to assist in achieving that goal.
Beyond the arms control aspect, there is the new and disturbing dimension to bilateral relations between India and Pakistan and their historic differences. The international community has emphasised the importance of India and Pakistan addressing, as a matter of urgency, the root causes of tension between them, including that raised by many hon. Members—the long-standing issue of Kashmir. We have urged both sides to make a fresh start in their bilateral relations and restore momentum to their dialogue.
In that context, we welcome the meeting between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in Colombo on 29 July. That was an important step forward in bilateral relations, and we hope that the follow-up talks now planned between senior officials will lead to early progress on the issues that divide those countries.
Only through bilateral dialogue will India and Pakistan find durable ways of solving the problem of Kashmir, but Britain has always stressed strongly the fact that, although we do not and cannot seek to internationalise the problem, we and the rest of the international community stand ready to help to look for practical solutions to the problems in Kashmir, if that would be helpful to India and Pakistan.
Kashmir inevitably remains a source of tension between India and Pakistan, and a solution must be found through the dialogue route that hon. Members have requested. To endure, any solution that is acceptable to both sides must take account of the wishes of those who live in Kashmir. Many people of Kashmiri origin live in this country and continue to take a strong interest in the future of Kashmir within the Indian subcontinent. Hon. Members have mentioned the need for both sides to behave responsibly, and we appeal to both India and Pakistan to ensure that the rhetoric is about seeking solutions, not creating tensions.
The regional security dimension of the tests was clearly recognised at the task force meeting. The group agreed to encourage implementation by India and Pakistan of

existing confidence-building and security-building measures, to which hon. Members have referred. A great many of those measures have been agreed by the two sides over the years, but have not been put into operation. The best way to build confidence and reduce tension would be for India and Pakistan to take the non-proliferation steps urged upon them by the international community and make early progress in their bilateral dialogue.
Britain is actively seeking nuclear de-escalation, so we now have the authority to demand that others also examine their roles. Specifically, as my hon. Friends have said, the strategic defence review contains several points of real significance. We have reduced the stockpile of available warheads and there is only one Trident submarine on deterrent patrol at any time. It carries 48 warheads, which is half the ceiling announced by the previous Government. It may interest my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle to learn that the missiles will be de-targeted. No cities are targeted, which means that it would be several days before the missiles were ready to fire. That is a genuine confidence-building measure.
There is no need for Britain to buy more Trident missiles. We have declared missile levels—a declaration that is unique among nuclear weapons states—and our total stocks of fissile materials. We have also declared the limited amounts of material that will be held outside safeguards for defence purposes, and we are transferring into safeguards material that is no longer required for that purpose. Those measures are designed to build a climate and a framework in which transparency is the order of the day. We must make it clear to other nuclear weapons states exactly where Britain stands.
We also intend to pursue with considerable vigour several specific points. Mention has been made of the fissile material cut-off treaty. We believe that that is the logical next step, and we shall pursue it vigorously both because we want to see India and Pakistan involved in the negotiations in Geneva and because we are prepared to be involved in those negotiations. We want the United States, Russia and China to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty, and we want India and Pakistan to sign the treaty, which would allow it to come into operation and, significantly, trigger the verification mechanisms that would span the planet. That is a massively important step forward, which is real and achievable.
We are exploring the possibility of improving security assurances to some non-nuclear weapons states beyond the existing nuclear weapons-free zones. We have already agreed to work on security assurances within the conference on disarmament. The British Government are taking practical measures that we believe will enhance the climate of confidence and make the world a safer place. In that light, we are in a position to condemn the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. However, we urge our friends in those countries to step back from the nuclear threshold, even at this late stage, and to join Britain in actively searching for ways of making the world safer, of decelerating the nuclear arms race and of seeking the mechanics of achieving a practical global elimination of nuclear weapons.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Two o' clock.